The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZ-4668 Staff Analysis6 4 gust 12, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B NAME: Geyer Woods Addition "Short -Form PRD" (Z-4668) LOCATION• East Side of Geyer Springs Road, South of Palo Alto and North of Rinke Road „WvT?r.nvFu ARCHITECT: Geyer Woods Development, Eddie Branton Corporation 707 Wallace Building Suite 412, Union Sta. Sq. Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-4730 Phone: 378-7542 AREA: 3.42 acres NO. OF LOTS: 24 FEET NEW ST.: 995 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Townhouses/Paired Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. Development Objectives (1) To develop,a unique, narrowly -shaped and difficult piece of property into a townhouse development. B. Development Proposal (1) The construction of,15 two story zero lot line buildings, with two units per building on 30 lots and 3.438 acres. Density equals nine units per acre. Two parking spaces per unit are provided. A typical unit will consist of 520 square feet of ground floor area with 240 square feet of carport. I � August 12, 1986 f SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued (2) Ratio of building to land 1 to 4.1. (3) Development schedule - Work on the project will be started within 60 days after final approval of the project and be completed within 18 months. (4) A standard 20 -foot street with a 40 -foot right-of-way will be provided with a hammerhead turnaround for the residence and service vehicles. C. Anal sis The applicant has indicated in his submission that he is attempting to develop property that has been passed over and isolated and that also has development constraints due to the need for extended utility service lines and the narrow width of the property. Thus, the only practical and economically feasible means of development of the property was through the PUD process with a townhouse style of residence. Staff recognizes these facts; however, the project still represents an unacceptable density. The PUD guidelines -specify a certain percentage of the property to be devoted, to landscaping, open space and recreational areas. Staff recommends complete redesign of the project to accommodate the stated -guidelines. A landscaping plan should be sumbitted also. Sidewalks should be indicated. A 50 -foot right-of-way dedication on Geyer Springs is requested. The proposed street is inadequate. At least 27 feet is requested, with a reduction to 24 feet if possible. Please specify the height of buildings, submit stormwater detention and calculation requirements. Staff supports the use of, the project, but feels that redesign would create a more desirable living environment. It may be possible to design the road to go straight along the southern portion of the property with clusters of units to the north. The applicant is asked, to get Fire Department approval. D. Staff Recommendation Denial as filed. 4 August 12, 1986 6 SUBDIVISIONS ON Item No. B - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of the item. Water Works Comments - On-site fire protection may be required. Sewer Comments - No plans -.submitted. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-10-86) The applicant was present. A motion for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1, absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86) The applicant was present and offered comments to the effect that he had addressed major concerns of staff as to density, street alignment and cul-de-sac turnaround. He further stated that he had devised a siting scheme to avoid a linear housing alignment. That is to say that the building lines will be varied to encourage the structures to be offset. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8=86) The applicant was present. There were several objectors in attendance and five addressed the issues. The staff offered a new recommendation in support of the project and affordable housing. The objectors speaking were Mr. Hunter Douglas, Jim Irwin, Betty Carter, Charles Phillips and Danny Sullivan. Their comments concerned neighborhood composition, the current overbuilt apartment circumstance in the neighborhood, economic loss to current August 12, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No B-------�--"-"- owners and the absence of benefits. Mr. ghborhood. BettyPCarter discussedas brief history of the neighborhood. pedestrians as well traffic congestion and t e ofdiscf ct ofolowed resulting in a automobiles. A lengthy general understanding that more contact between the owner objectors was needed prior to resolution of this and the t a request of the proposal. A motion was made to accept1986, applicant for a deferral to Aunoes,st l2rabemotion sent andl open passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: which, eliminated the park, A revised plan was submitted, property line, pulled the cul-de-sac away from the eastern pro P and reduced the number of lots. WATER oR WORKS - An 8 -inch water -main extension is required. A 5 and r 20 feet easement is required from main installation. An existing 12 inch is located in Geyer r• Springs Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: resent. Approximately 18 persons were The applicant was p explained that the applicant present in opposition. Staff exp the park area, had submitted a revised plan eliminating property line and pulling cul-de-sac away from the eastern prop Y to t reducing the number of lots atibilityStaff ofrecommended losizes. of the application based on noncom Pthe It was explained that'further,examination a were from 8,OOOetoe9,000 rev average lot sizes in the a square feet versus that of 4,000 square feet in this proposal. Mr. Randy Frazier, an The application was presented by Mr. Frazier Attorney, and Mr. Clint Cavin, Developer. expressed concern over- Stafhad "bentein overrbackwards", toos. He felt that the Developer He accommodate the wishes of staff oand3;000nsquaberfeet.would felt that the units consisting sell for approximately $45,000 to $50,000 and that this would address the City's concern over affordable housing. - -- •-- .. — - - �,.�,�..ra... �.. �-:: :--�ti-_.�-ate.-. �.�:r-.�,.�.�r....:e�.�.,�-.�u,cwr.�[:u.��c_�:�w�x�:a,r: :w�a�r.ia�ns5v:�` w��e�70 August 12, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued that the Commission should base its decision on that of land use and not.that of demand. Commissioner 5chlereth agreed, but also felt that the cost of the amount of street to be built could not be allocated over the 9 or 10 single family homes the property could supporta He pointed out. that the real issue could be whether the property should be developed at all. Mr. Douglas stated that they. had offered to buy the property at a "reasonable price" but could not and would not buy at the $60,000 the developer asked. Mr. Frazier felt that this project would not be developed and managed like the Woodland Ridge project. Both sides were complimented on good presentations. Finally, a motion for approval was made but failed to pass by a vote of 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. L_J