Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0161-B Staff Analysis4 April 14, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 Applicant: Woodlands Hills Preliminary/PRD Location: Maralynn Road at Point 1/4 Mile East of Napa Valley Drive (East Portion of Turtle Creek) Zoned: "MF-18" and "R-2" to PRD 1. PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting that this area of 54.9 acres be zoned from its present mixed classification as "MF-18" (multifamily) and 11R-2" (single family residential) to that of a "PRD" or planned residential zoning district. The development plans involve the building of 192 owner occupied, single family units that resemble a SF home, but share a common wall and roof, and are situated on separately -owned lots. There will be approximately five units per acre. Each unit will have a minimum of 1,200' with two to three bedrooms. A Property Owners Association will be provided to govern common ownership problems which may arise, and to provide for maintenance and operation of common areas and recreation facilities. Due to the current state of the economy, the applicant feels that this type of development is necessary so that young people and median income families may be brought into the single family ownership market. The costs will be approximately $50,000 per unit. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE The plan is in conformance with the Ordinance's requirements for the review of a Planned Unit Development. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH OFF-STREET PARKING At the time of this writing, the applicant had not submitted data on provisions for parking. Since these are owner occupied units, however, it seems that adequate space is provided by separate driveways to each lot. 4. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Engineering has recommended that street improvements on Maralynn be constructed to normal collector standards which is one-half of 361/60' right-of-way. April 14, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued 5. TREATMENT OF THE SITE/VISUAL EFFECTS The applicant proposes to devote the following in open space and common areas: Common'Useable Open Space - 5.4 acres Common Nonuseable Open Space - 0 acres Private Useable Open Space --- 17.4 acres Private Nonuseable open space - 0 acres These will be provided in the form of naturally wooded and green areas. 6. COMPLIANCE TO MASTER PLAN No issue. 7. ANALYSIS +� Staff has reviewed this proposal in light of the standards provided in the Ordinance for PUD developments. We have no particular problems with the basic concept for development, though there are several points of concern. Specifically, they relate to the (a) street system -which calls for an excessive amount of pavement in the form of 20' service easements; (b) a lack of adequate recreational facilities and open space, since the physical layout is relatively tight with a limited amount of open space between dwelling units, (c) method of future development of the land at the southeast corner of the site that is zoned "MF-18"; and (d) need for additional information on the design of the residential units. In our view, this proposal can be positively enhanced by adherence to the suggestions stated below. 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff proposes that: 1. An effort should be made to create a central focus which may mean devoting all of the block containing the pool. El April 14, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued 2. Clustering of units could be obtained without a significant change in street patterns. This could be accomplished by providing three or four radials off a central hub. These radials would be 80' to 100' wide and would leave natural green space. The four corner areas devoted to green space could be terminators of these radials. This design approach would tend to break up the linear effect now use. 3. The use of variable setbacks on front of lots could be used to provide a visual corridor that is more pleasing. 4. Elimination of the rear drive in the "O" lot line area could provide additional green space along the west perimeter. This should have the effect of reducing impervious surfaces and make the "O" lot line lots look like conventional single family. 5. Some treatment should be given to"the special relationship between the two housing types. This would give separate identity to each. 6. There are excessive amounts of service drives (alleys).which could be broken by the radial green treatment to allow short cul-de-sacs. Also, some of the streets could be extracted without severely changing the design. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION *The Committee voted for approval, subject to modifications suggested by Staff, and the submission of a revised plat. The vote - 3 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. *EDITOR'S NOTE: Since the subdivision meeting, the applicants have submitted a revised plat that addresses most of Staff's concerns. There is still some question as to the workability of the pedestrian ways. If r April 14, 1981 y� SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Several persons that are directly involved with the proposal were in attendance. These, among others, included David Henry, the applicant's representative; Joe White, the applicant's engineer; Doug Toney, the builder; and the applicant himself. Mr. Henry gave a brief presentation, during which he highlighted major components of the revised plat, which was submitted in response to both the Staff's and the Subdivision Committee's recommendations. Quite a few residents from surrounding subdivisions, such as Turtle Creek, Pleasant Tree and Walnut Valley, were present, and in opposition. The major concerns expressed by four spokespersons for these areas, involved: (1) The fact that the area was actually being rezoned at all; (2) Possible adverse impacts, such as increased traffic and property devaluation; and (3) Insufficient buffer areas between the development and the surrounding single family homes. Two specific requests were directed to the applicant and the Commission. Mr. Glen Petkosek, who represented Turtle Creek, wanted some type of assurance that his subdivision would not be invaded with traffic problems in the future. Ms. Vickie Watkins, a resident of Pleasant Tree, requested that an area specified as a 25' buffer be widened to 50'. Mr. Henry, Commissioner Johnson, and several other Commissioners, responded by stating their belief that the homes were adequately buffered, because of the topographical difference between the two areas. Staff comments reflected their satisfaction with the applicant's efforts to incorporate the revisions requested. However, both staff and the Commission expressed concern over the nature of the internal pedestrian way system, and whether or not sidewalks would be provided on Mara Lynn Drive. Mr. Henry assured the Commission that sidewalks would be built on Mara Lynn. He also agreed to revise the plat and provide standard 4' sidewalks with asphalt, as a means of connecting several segments of the development at the rear of the plat. L-71 f 0 tw April 14, 1981 Item No. 7 Continued A motion for approval as revised was made by Chairman Massie. The motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 2 noes, 2 absent.* * The no vote, Commissioners Massie and Turner. Absent were: Commissioners Arnett and Wright. AF- 11-0 June 9, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Woodland Hills PUD LOCATION: Mara Lynn Road at a point 1/4 mile east of Napa Valley Drive (east portion of Turtle Creek) OWNER/APPLICANT: Danny Thomas REQUEST: DEVELOPMENT PHILOSOPHY: ENGINEER: Edward G. Smith and Associates 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 To rezone an area presently classified as an "MF-18" (Multifamily) zoning district to that of a PUD (planned residential district). This is an attempt to stimulate the stagnant housing market, by offering quality single-family housing to owner -occupants at an affordable price in spite of current high building costs and interest rates. The development objective is to provide two types of housing. One involves the construction of two units under one roof, which will appear to resemble traditional single-family housing from the street. To preserve this appearancQ, access will be provided from the rear. A two-family unit will be built on two separate lots, with the lots being divided from front to rear in the center of the structure. Each owner would own one-half of the unit constructed directly over his lot, which would be paired with the adjoining lot owner's corresponding lot. The development will also contain traditional single-family housing. These lots are situated adjacent to Turtle Creek and Pleasant Tree Subdivisions, so as to offer an on -site transition from single-family to paired unit development. The traditional single-family lots are standard 70' x 120' lots with a minimum of 7,000 square feet each. PROPOSAL 1. The construction of 161 owner -occupied units, plus pool/recreation area on 41.7 acres of land. 4 41 14 June 9, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued 2. Development according to the following schedule of units: Max. Bldg. Min. Lot Type No^of Units Gross Floor Dimensions _ Size A 70 1200 sq. ft. 24 x 60' 40 x 130' B 37 1250 sq. ft. 24 x 62' 40 x 130' C 19 1350 sq. ft. 32 x 42' 50 x 130' D 8 1400 sq. ft. 32 x 44' 50 x 130' E 27 1400 sq. ft. 32 x 44' 70 x 120' 3. The provision of 3.56 acres is common usable open space. 4. The provision of 0 acres and common non -usable open space. 5. The provision of 24.79 acres and private usable open space. 6. The provision of 0 acres in private non -usable open space. 7. The provision of 246,500 square feet or 5.66 acres of building coverage. 8. The provision of 205,350 square feet or 4.71 acres of gross floor area. 9. Provision for parking in the rear of the majority of units with access from private drives. 10. Optional construction of 20 x 20' carports with unit types A and B. 11. Construction of a 50/27' residential street. 12. The formation of a Property Owners' Association for maintenance of all common areas and facilities. r 0_10 June 9, 1981 Item No. 5 -- Continued 13. The construction of sidewalks in accordance with Ordinance requirements. USES PROPOSED: Single-family residence. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: (1) Sites considered under the Planned Unit Development concept must be 2.0 acres or greater. This plan complies. (2) The provision of 1.0 spaces per unit. This plan complies. (3) Single-family, duplex, zero lot line and townhouse developments shall have a minimum of 500 square feet of usable open space per unit. This plan complies. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: None. SUBDIVISION RECOMMENDATION: A motion was made and passed for the approval of this item as a PUD, subject to a specification in the BOA that garbage is not to be collected in the rear. The vote was 3 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 9, 1981) Both of the applicant's representatives, Mr. David Henry and Mr. Joe White, the engineer, were in attendance. There were no objectors. The Commission favorably acted upon this request by passing a motion that was in agreement with the Subdivision Committee's recommendation, subject to a specification in the Bill of Assurance that garbage is not to be collected in the rear. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.