HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0293 Staff Analysisy
r January 25, 1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - File No. 293
NAME:
►•
Shadow Mountain Preliminary
Subdivision and Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Between Green Mountain Drive and
Shackleford Road, north of Mara
Lynn Road
DEVELOPER ENGINEER:
Henderson Real Investors Allen Curry
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma P.O. Box 897
Stuttgart, AR North Little Rock, AR
AREA: 13.4 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R-611, "R-511, "MF-12" and "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: Multifamily
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
Waiver of subdivisions on Shackleford Road.
STAFF REPORT:
A. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site under consideration is a constant slope
falling downgrade from west to east. The grade is not
severe, but may offer design difficulties for access to
Green Mountain Drive at the north corner. The
elevation change of some 60' from Shackleford Road
access to Green Mountain provides drainage problems to
existing residential properties at the access point.
The tract has a single large body of land with the
predominant .frontage along Green Mountain Drive with a
secondary access point to Shackleford Road, which is
little more than the area of a single residential lot.
The site is well covered by timber and natural
vegetation.
The neighborhood adjacent is all residential, with
single family on the north and east and condominium
town houses to the south and west.
a i
January 25, 1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
B. EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
All public utilities are in place, and the site is
served by two collector streets. These streets are
somewhat impacted by the existing circumstances in that
as a collector pair they function as an arterial with
excessive flow at certain peak times.
C. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND CHARACTERISTICS
The plan proposed consists of 20 buildings, with a
total of 256 units with 26 handicapped. Ninety percent
of the units will be brick veneer. There will be two
service buildings and pool areas. A breakdown of units
is as follows:
64 units with 1 bedroom each, 128 units with 2
bedrooms each, 64 units of efficiency.
A total of 166,336 square feet of floor,area.
D. CONFORMANCE WITH ORDINANCE STANDARDS
1. Variances: Variances are requested for sidewalks
along l th Shackleford and Green Mountain Drive.
The Shackleford frontage is very narrow, and
little would be accomplished with a sidewalk,
inasmuch as a driveway fills most of the curbline.
There is a better prospect of usage of sidewalk
along Green Mountain, since there are over two
blocks of frontage.
2. 7oninj: The owner has taken steps to downzone
the various high density parcels to a district
compatible with this proposal.
E. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATION
The Engineering Department recommends construction of
sidewalk along Green Mountain Drive the entire length
of this frontage. This development will generate
approximately 2,000 trips per day. This department
recommends that the main traffic access points be on
Green Mountain, and that the access to Shackleford Road
be limited to a small portion of the development or for
emergency services only.
January 25, 1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
F. ANALYSIS
The first comment the staff would offer here would be
to suggest that the Planning Commission should be made
aware of the access issue onto Shackleford Road from
this site. The parcel proposed has been held for
several years for this purpose and is zoned Single
Family. The existing zoning prohibits access to
Shackleford Road to serve other than single family
usage on this property. The staff_'s view is that a
very minor traffic access, if at all, should be taken
to Shackleford; perhaps only an emergency access as
suggested by the Engineering Department. Green
Mountain Drive is presently a collector street carrying
below its capacity and should be able to accommodate
these properties. As to the proposal, the staff's view
is that it is appropriate to the site, with some
modification. All of tY}e usual concerns have been
dealt with or will be. J These concerns are the 40'
buffer requirement adjacent to existing single family,
screening fences and dumpster sites. There is an
unresolved question concerning the retention of a 15'
buffer within the 40' requirement. The existing
proposal indicates a driveway occupying up to 25' of
the 40' dimension along the perimeter. This presents a
problem, inasmuch as the utility easement requested
occupies the same space as the 15' remainder. If this
conflict cannot be resolved, then a redesign of the
total project would be required in order to move the
driveways from the perimeter. While the proposal
contains minimum parking spaces, this should not be a
problem inasmuch as one half_ of the units are one
bedroom or efficiency. The Fire Department suggests
that the Shackleford access be a minimum of 20' wide
pavement area if access is permitted.
G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation will begin by suggesting that
this applicant be required to give notice to the
neighborhood, inasmuch as the proposal will have a
significant effect on traffic and access to the area.
Staff would recommend approval of the application with
modifications in line with comments made in our
analysis and in the engineering considerations. We
feel that at most, if access is permitted to this site
from Shackleford, it should not exceed 15 percent of
the total units proposed. This would be in line with
the numbers of cars that could utilize this point,
should the property be developed for single family.
January 25, 1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the plan and plat in concept
recognizing that Mr. Curry will resolve the 15' easement/
buffer conflict and staff will prepare a report on the
history of the access on Shackleford. That history to be
added by the agenda date. Applicant required to notify all
abutting single family lot owners on Ethan Allen and
Shackleford Road. The vote - 4 ayes, 0 noes.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Brooks Peterson and Mr. Allen Curry represented the
developers. Some 30 to 40,persons from the neighborhood
were present and in opposition. Staff clarified the
remaining issue to be resolved by stating their concern with
the question of whether or not access should be provided
from Shackleford-Road to this development through a tract of
land zoned Single Family; since the Ordinance specifically
prohibits such access to a Multifamily parcel. Staff
reported that the applicant had amended his application so
that his proposal included dedicating this Single Family
tract as a public street.
A length discussion ensued; during which several
spokespersons evolved from the group of opposers. They
were:
(1) Mr. Dale Leggett, representing 450 single family home
owners from the adjacent Walnut Valley Subdivision;
(2) Mr. Mike Robynet of North Shackleford Road;
(3) Dr. T.A. McDaniel of 1.1.13 N. Shackleford Road;
(4) Ms. Patricia Merit of Shackleford Road;
(5) Mr. Fred Junkin of 1408 Green Mountain Drive;
( 6 ) Mr. John Mitchell of 612 Nan Circle;
(7) Sally Leggett of Shackleford Road;
(8) Mr. Scott Terry of 820 N. Shackleford;
(9) Mr. Bob Walton - 11417 Ethan Allen Drive;
(10) Mr. Dick Crow of 809 Kings Mountain Drive;
(11) Mr. Brian Herman of 808 North Shackleford; and
(12) Mr. Al Conrad of 11411 Fthan Allen.
January 25, 1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
Mr. Leggett first raised objections relative to the
development of a Multifamily project in a Single Family area
because of the perpetuation of an existing traffic problem
in the area; devaluation of homes and property, and the
possibility of introducing a transient -type population into
the neighborhood. The latter assumption was based on the
developer's plans to provide approximately one-half
efficiency units. At this point, the Commission clarified
the issue as being, not one of rezoning, but of access to
Shackleford from this development. Mr. Leggett was
specifically asked whether or not the Walnut Valley Property
Owners' Association was opposed to the proposed access. He
replied that they were.
Objections raised by others concerned possible drainage
problems, noise, lack of safety, increase in traffic on
Ethan Allen, Shackleford and Green Mountain, loss of privacy
to those homes abutting the development on the north and
location of the northernmost drive on Ethan Allen.
Mr. John Mitchell requested that there be a minimum of a
100' buffer on the north. Mr. Bob Walton requested that the
northernmost drive off Green Mountain be placed a full 40'
back from the property line, instead of just 15' as allowed
by Ordinance; and that the swimming pool in the complex be
moved from its northern position so as to minimize potential
disturbance of those residences abutting the property.
After much discussion, a motion was made to deny access from
Shackleford, but defer approval of the site plan for two
weeks so that the developer could redesign the northern
portion of the plan to reflect the internalization of the
drive and the relocation of the swimming pool. The motion
passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent and 1 open
position (no vote - Commission John Clayton).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-25-83)
The applicant was present. There were objectors present.
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a revised
plan which had addressed many of the concerns of the
residents from the previous meeting. non Johnson, the
architect, outlined the changes to the Commission. They
were:
(1) Relocation of the drive on the north so that it is 40'
from the property line;
January 25, 1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
(2) Elimination of Shackleford access;
(3) Centralization of the pool and maintenance building so
as to isolate it from the adjacent property;
(4) Provision of 2,311' of fence adjacent to single family
areas;
(5) Provision of left turn lane at northwest access to
Green Mountain Drive to ease potential traffic
congestion and provide safer access;
(6) Provision of exit lane at each Green Mountain entrance
to allow safer access from this street;
(7) Revision of internal drives at an angle so as to reduce
glare from autos which could affect single family areas
to the north;
(8) Increase of the turning radius at major intersections
within the site, so as to ease the traffic flow;
(9) Relocation of Fast Loop Drive so that a 25' buffer to
the property "line is provided adjacent to single family
homes.
The Commission requested that the applicant extend the fence
across the single family tract that was previously proposed
as an access point to Shackleford.
Mr. Dale Leggett spoke in behalf of the Walnut Valley
Property Owners' Association. He stated that the approval
of this plan would only perpetuate a previous error made in
the planning of the area. He felt that the plan should be
revised further by; (1) internalization of the northwest
drive instead of moving it back; (2) placing speed bumpers
on the drives; (3) placing the fence on the other side of
the buffer area, so that the buffer would be adjacent to the
single family homes; (4) relocating the trash bins and air
conditioning units; (5) providing a masonry fence; (6)
lessening the density and amount of efficiency apartments;
(7) converting the development to condominiums.
January 25, 1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
Others who spoke were:
(1) Mr. William Metcalf of 11215 Ethan Allen requested that
buffer zones be replanted with trees 12' and 10' high
in an area behind his home where they were removed
because of a sanitary sewer_ easement;
(2) Mr. Scott Terry, the property owner next to Mr. Metcalf
on Shackleford, reiterated what he said;
(3) Mr. Stan Langham requester that the buffer be increased
from 40' to 751.
Mr. Johnson rebutted by stating that they would replant what
was cleared in e--cess of the easement up to Ordinance
standards but surely would not like to be responsible for
the utility company's actions; and that the location of the
trash dumpsters were for the convenience of the residents
within the complex.
A motion was made to approve the revised plan, conditioned
upon: (1) the extension of the Fence to the southwest
corner of Lot 357 and to the southwest corner of Lot 249;
and (2) restoration of the landscaping which has been
cleared by the utility company, but only to Ordinance
standards. The motion passed by a vote 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0
absent, 1 open position.
Sll
ri
PS
(2 1.
1 t
1j j..j( 7
I i r
v oy
ii.1 T I-
4
I Q.
77
tin -
1) ENV
0 1 A llf� LP
'J";e
11 2
TI
lo I.(.:
!L :7
tl e C.'
sidowalk- olorlq
Mc I I I 'I
I-L); )I-
kq
I L
c 1) 111 P.
J I I
jj
V 1
'yi SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 CO 1-11 i I I U C d
Q_ r
ANALYSIS
t)
The first cuinment the L
to Sugjkjk?st Lhat the Plami'lly f;h0iild C)(2
aware of tllr_, Ruod [F');H
this Site. I'll(, nrup llf"l-cl for
several_ for tlli�1 -.:ilrpot;e m'd 'L."; z 0 F I U 9
P a III i ly . 1'11 C, X I5 1: 1 li (j 1 n1J ])I- U
S h a c k I L:(! Road L () s e I- V f-'Imi ly
usage oil Lnis v I eyl i a It 'A
very llii.rior It- uj f r- is 17 L a I I
to Slia," -11, () I I ty In (1111(11 aS
-1ps
suggested ;)y Lhe I'llyl-ileet:111, D(?pilr t_Ill(,rI t— Ur(
Moon Lain Driv, is pr,'S('nt,-Jy
below it 'ap'-IC
i ty alld `;llou 1-d 5 1 1 1 f L o a (-: C 1!1; [to d Lt t,t
�hese prop?Ities. A�-3 t_() 1-hi, V I
L It wi 1,11 c;tmlc-
Inod i i CI -I L j Al I of
Qi
L-I
dealt with -Ul: W-1, II h e 1 10'
buffo requirement a d t: I- i
j -I tj x L f rA i I
screening LI I -_Illd (
III I.V('(1 Clue'; L, jon n, i
C�
buffer w i t I i n L I.-i e 401 Th
Nl;�,,ID r 0 1) 0 S,I I- i n CI j (-'a t, 2")
t: I 40, d i
Io I km I ol Iq jwt- I Th I
b I i I, j 1 j-
C) C C U S 1111 (2 .;W cu I
JJ
coil f I L c L c _L i i n o b S I V d I Q I I I I-- C, (I ri 1. L I
0 :al Project wouI d be k U L: e I) J j r d,-, I-- Lo jriovc2 t h
driveways f lf(Dill the perimeter. While t-lle proposal
In 111 iInLIJIl parking spaces, LI, i,; should not be
problem inasinuch as 0 r, 0 hcjjf of the unil.-F; are one
bedroom or efficiency. 1"ne, Pire Departim�tlt �,u3gest-_
—
--I -
tht thy, r Shacklefod accc:;s he a minimum, (A 2 0
L f a C C e F, s i ; pe rin i t ted .
STAFF- RECOM1111ENDATION
The s ta f I Ee comillenda t ion w i 1. 1 begin by
this applicant be requi) . red to gve not i(_,e to file
.4
neighborhood, inasmuch as the pz.oposa I wilt have a
significant Ef ec t on Ll7af: E ic' and Lo Lli( -, area.
Staff would Uecommend of the app-t ica t- -on with
modif icaLions 'i n I Lne with nim( co, j_jI rjur
analysis -ill(j, in L -lie engill,,pl-ing L i -M e
L(!(:,
feel that at Inn-)st, if jc, c, s :j i s p In j L t- d t__O this si 1. __,
f r C) I n Sh Li c k -1. o17 0 J_ t sh _) uld not exceed I . , .) r: e n L 01-
the total_ units proposed. would w, L A n e w i t
t 11 e n u in b e I: s o C a r S un i-j t C, o u -L (I LI t i I i z e, t h j. p c)
shout d l- 11 e property be d ("I (, 1. n p (, (1 f: o r i ; I y