Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0296-D Staff Analysis1. Meeting Date: May 2, 1989 2. Case No.: S-296-D 3. Request: To approve a modified Planned Residential District for Parkway Village to permit a reduction in density and allow duplex type structures to be erected. 4. Location: On Rock Creek Parkway at Pride Valley Road, north side of the Parkway. 5. Owner/App.li.cant: Pa-rkway Village, Inc. 6. Exist ing_Status: Vacant land 7. Proposed Use: Retirement cottages in a duplex format. 8. Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends ............................................. appr...ov.a...l o.f t...he . revised Planned Residential District subject to the engineer for the project working with Staff to resolve the parking design issues. 9. P_Ia_nning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Planned Residential District as recommended by the Staff. 10. Recommendation Forwarded. With: 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent. 11. Obiectors: None. FILE NO.: S-296-A NAME: Parkway Village Planned Residential District revised plan LOCATION: On Rock Creek Parkway at Pride Valley Road, north side of the Parkway. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Parkway Village, Inc. White-Daters Engineers 14300 Rock Creek Parkway 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 72201 227-1600 374-1666 AREA: 4.56 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PRD PROPOSE❑ USES: Residential in two -unit buildings. 17 ^ — -- CENSUS TRACT: 40.02 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The developers of Parkway Village wish to revise the Planned Unit Development on their project. The proposed changes consist of the substitution of ten single -story duplex units for two three-story multifamily buildings. The property will be developed in the same form as the previous phases. The land will not be subdivided and the title will remain in Parkway Village. The revised project data for the 1989 expansion consists of: Area of proposed revisions 4.566 acres Proposed building coverage 1.116 acres Landscaped common open space 1.783 acres Paved common open space 1.254 acres Private open space 0.413 acres All open space within this project is considered usable land. (Continued). A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This application involves a request to modify the existing Parkway Village PRD site plan. The proposal is that the existing two buildings on the approved plan of some three stories each be modified to a plan which will allow ten duplex -type structures to be constructed. These two unit buildings will be arranged in a conventional residential format with garages attached and a significant amount of green space surrounding. Access to the units will be by way of an internal access drive with off-street parking, both on the unit sites and at several satellite locations. There will be no access to the properties from the current Evergreen Way or Woodside Drive. These streets are in place and serve existing development units within Parkway Village. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property currently consists of rolling terrain with no improvement. Some modification of the land area has been accomplished in previous site improvements. The roadways are in place which will provide the principal means of access to the various units and provide immediate access to Rock Creek Parkway lying approximately one block to the south. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: The only issue offered by the public Works Department deals with whether detention requirements have been provided on this site in previous approvals and the appropriateness of requiring that this be accomplished. The street system is a private street system and in place and creates no problem for the general public in its movements. D. _iS5U_ES/LEGALl CHNICA....L[DESIGN: The only issue determined by Staff in this area that requires resolution is the proposed head -in parking along Woodside Drive to the rear of Buildings 6, 3 and 4 and between Buildings 1 and 2. The reason this is of concern is that Woodside Drive, as presently constructed, services a recreational area and other buildings to the northwest quadrant of the total project area. These parking stalls would back 900 into (Continued) the traffic flow of this street. This is poor design and should be eliminated. Additionally, and in connection with Woodside Drive, that street name should be changed so as to eliminate a direct conflict with Woodside Drive as it now exists in the Briarwood Subdivision. This is especially important if individual street addresses are required for these units and Woodside is the street chosen for those addresses. E. ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff finds little of consequence to comment on in connection with this proposal. It appears to be one of good design, plenty of open space, and a livable environment. There are considerable livability factors built into the total project area that will support the issue at hand. This project also takes advantage of existing items such as the drainage facilities, detention or retention, and ready access to the Rock Creek Parkway. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested modification subject to removal of the parking stalls along Woodside Drive, resolution of the street name conflict, and resolution of the retention/excavation issue. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 23, 1989) Mr. Joe White was present representing Parkway Village, Inc. Mr. White had questions concerning the Staff's comments as to the design of parking off Woodside Drive. A brief discussion of this design element resulted in Mr. White agreeing to looking at alternate parking layouts, perhaps deepening the parking spaces to add reflex time for maneuvering vehicles to avoid conflict with street traffic. There were no other issues of concern discussed by the Committee. The item was passed to the full Commission without additional comment. (Con t- i Hued ) - -- --- - PLANNING COMMISSION.._ACTI.ON: (April 4, 1989) The application was represented by Mr. Joe White of White- Daters Engineers. The Planning Staff reported that it was appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval subject to Mr. White and Planning Staff working out the parking design issues. A brief discussion followed during which the Commission determined it appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval with the conditions specified by Staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent.