Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0413 Staff AnalysisN May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-413 NAME: Western Pines Addition Conceptual Plan and Plat LOCATION: At both ends of Melba Drive, running between South University Avenue and Western Hills Boulevard. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: E. D. Yancey Forest Marlar Engineers Searcy, AR 5318 J.F.K. Boulevard No. Little Rock, AR 72116 753-1987 AREA: 154.9 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 660 FT. NEW STREET: 20,000 +/- ZONING: Various, ranging from single family through commercial PROPOSED USES: A mixed use, mixed density residential development. PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 CENSUS TRACT: 24.02 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Design variances are to be requested and dealt with on each preliminary plat as'fi-led. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT: The developers of this large residential tract, Mr. E. D. Yancey of Searcy, Arkansas and 'vyr. Austin Wiggins, Jr. of North Little Rock, propose a devul opment for single family, detached and single family, at.--_Ih ed. The project proposal consists of some 155 acres witl-� ever 600 lots. The lot sizes will vary from a -low 40 f,_o�e range to the 60 foot minimum for "R-2," Single-Farnilti�. The project is proposed to be developed in alconcentric r''ing approach whereby the larger lots will be placed agairist the existing developed residential areas and other la<,ts apses. The smaller lots will be grouped in three separate areas within the interior May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION I tem No._4 (Con Li Hued ).__ of the project and will be approached as separate development proposals. Each of these proposals will be a planned unit development. There will be within the southeastern quadrant of the development area a single multifamily site of some eight acres and, at the eastern point of entry to the development, there is currently a small site (approximately .4 acres) zoned "C-3." That property may be developed as a convenience store or some personal service retail. The project also includes a 14 acre recreation and park site lying along the south and east boundary adjacent to the Fourche Creek floodplain. The submission of this plan in a conceptual format is intended to obtain from the Planning Commission a basic design approach approval which will allow the developer to submit in stages the various development areas. The developer proposes working with HUD and FHA to develop affordable housing on many of the lots, if not all of them. In order to accomplish this goal, the -existing zoning scheme on the Rock Creek Golf Course and other parcels included - within the boundary will require change. A rezoning application will be filed for the next rezoning hearing cycle. The filing deadline for that review period is April 24 for the May 30th meeting. Therefore, the Planning Commission will have under consideration both rezoning and the plat concept during the month of May. At this time the developer proposes few specific design elements. However, several stand out, one of these being the name change and re -alignment for Lielba Drive. This will be a collector street to connect South University at Walt Bennett Ford with Western Hills Drive adjacent to the Western Hills Church. A second point would be the termination of Fairway Drive at its eastern end at the Western Hills Country Club property. This developer does not propose to extend that street. It would be somewhat complicated to provide for a tie to Either of the several streets within the plat. The third n d last design element is the placement of what appears to he residential lots on the north side of the Melba Drive entry on property which is apparently zoned "C-3," General May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 4 (Continued)__ A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This developer proposes a small lot, development for affordable housing. Commission consists of a request to concept and center line location for elements, the approval of the approa the three pockets specified for plan district at a future date, and that permitted to approach the Commission preliminary plat submission on each single family The request of the approve the design the various street ch to placement of ned residential the developer be with a complete area as the development progresses, without regard to providing specific phase lines on the conceptual plan. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The area within the boundary of this proposal is primarily a golf course that has been in use for at least thirty years. Much of the land has been cleared for the fairways. However, there are certain areas within the properties that are covered by mature trees and would provide certain -livability factors within the design of the layout. The project boundary abuts a mixed land use relationship. There are schools and churches on the south and west, and the Westwood single family development along Western Hills Avenue. To the north, between this project and Asher Avenue, are a number of industrial and commercial uses. Along South University at the principal point of entry, there are several automobile dealerships and warehouse type uses. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: The developer should conform to the Excavation and Detention Ordinance. The plan, although conceptual, should reflect the 100-year flood elevations along Rock Creek. There will be variance requests required for tangent length at the east end of Melba Drive when dealing with the preliminary plat. There are a number of street names which are in conflict with existing City streets. Street geometry in the planned residential areas should conform to Master Street Plan design for at least minor residential standards. Eliminate deflection at connection to Oak Park Drive on the northern boundary. Provide a 150 foot radius curve on Pine Cliff Circle. Redesign connection to the parking lot on Trellis Court. May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 4 (Continued) D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: This proposal raises several questions concerning design, technical issues and, perhaps, even legal which are: 1. The need for open space throughout the project, especially at the core, high density single family. 2. The need to perhaps move the PUD elements from the core to the perimeter adjacent to existing golf course, lake and recreation areas., 3. The need to bring_Kramer Darraugh into the proposal in order to deal with dedication or purchase park or open space lands. 4. Look at combined development of recreation space with the school site. ' 5. Reduction of number of small lots to perhaps 100. E. ANALYSIS: Reserved. F. 'STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Reserved: The Planning Staff reserves recommendation on this item in order to work with the developer and be prepared to address six or seven areas of concern. These areas are: the project proposal for affordable housing exceeds 100 units which is a number that has been established by proposed guidelines for affordable housing. The second concern would be the amount of usable recreation space that would be devoted to the residents of the core of the project that are the higher density lots. A third concern would be the location of the higher idensity housing lots to the amenities of the.neighborhood, such as the lake and golf course. The fourih concern would be the unusual street design that is tentatively proposed for the planned residential elemE:rits of the project. A fifth concern would be the apparent need to buffer the residential elements of this project from several ti May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. . 4 ( Continued ) -.___._........._..__..-.-.---._..._....._. ..... _� �. _,__.m., abutting land uses which are industrial or commercial, and are of significant scale. The last point of concern is that the Staff would like to review this proposal in light of the review standards that have been set forth in a report dealing with designing criteria for placement of affordable housing in Little Rock. (See attached copy) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 4, 1989) The applicant was present as was his engineer, Mr. Forest Marlar. Before discussing several of the specific design issues identified by Staff, Gary Greeson discussed with the developer the possibility of a deferral of this item for the purpose of having additional discussions about design and the relationship of design to the proposed guidelines for affordable housing in the City of Little Rock. Staff then moved to the Attachment A -on this item which i5 a specific listing of the proposed guidelines. The Staff introduced each item and a brief discussion followed on each involving the owner and the Committee. Many of these items, the developer indicated, should not be a problem. However, there were several that did not appear to apply or were perhaps restrictive. Jerry Gardner of the Public Works Staff then offered some comments from his perspective. They were street name changes that were needed, street center line realignments, and some reverse curves which required further review. The Little Rock Water Works representative added a comment that this project should work with the Water Works for purposes of providing an easement for a transmission line through the area from University to Western Hill Boulevard, and a site for a water pump station. After a brief discussion of the deferral, it was determined that the Staff would set a meeting with the applicants and other interested parties during the early part of the week of May 8th. There being no further discussion on this matter, it was forwarded to the full Commission. ATTACHMENT A. DESIGN STANDARDS (as extracted, from a report by O.C.P. dated March 1989) Design standards for affordable housing should be established to assure that they do not appear to be "projects" and that they maintain their value. Presented below are suggested design guidelines for affordable housing projects:- ,jy 1. The maximum size of a development should be 100 units. 2. Minimum lot size should be 35 feet in width and r 100 feet in depth. 3. Streets should not exceed 15 lots in length, and the normal street standards for right-of-way and paving width should be met. 4. Sidewalks should. be provided in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations. 5. Recreation space should be provided in return for receiving the smaller lot size., At least twelve percent (12%) of the development should consist of usable open space. 6. The minimum dwelling unit size should be 900 square feet. 7. Front setbacks should be staggered with minimum setbacks being from 15 to 23 feet. At least one-third of the units should be setback between 15 and 17 feet, one-third between 18 and 20 feet, and one-third between 21 and 23 feet,, 8. Minimum side yard setbacks should be zero on one side and ten feet on the other, or five feet on each side. All zero -lot -line homes should have a five foot maintenance easement on the adjacent lot. 9. Minimum rear yard setbacks should be 15 feet. 10. Architectural details on building facades, porches, roof lines, and around windows should be varied and well -mixed throughout the development. 11. Building materials and color s;c;hemes should be varied and yet harmonious overall. Attachment A (Continued) 12. At least five different floor plans and five different elevations should be offered to purchasers in order to provide for variety. 13. Each housing unit should be constructed of material which will be easy to maintain over a twenty-five (25) year period. 14. At least 1200 square feet of continuous open space should be available on each lot. 15. The front yard area should be landscaped with sod, at least three trees, and at least two shrubs. 16. A pedestri'an circulation system should be provided to facilitate access to recreation facilities and for safety of children. 17. The Bill of Assurance should prohibit the parking of any disabled vehicle in. the driveway or front yard of any lot. Also, no such vehicle should be allowed.to be parked for storage in the side or rear yard of any lot unless screened from view. 18. Two off-street parking spaces should be provided for each dwelling unit. -�