Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0161-C Staff AnalysisPPM'ay'10P,P 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 21 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 10, 1983) Mr. Chris Barrier r-2presented the Developer. He submitted a proposal that represented an agreement worked out with the property owners within the Project. It involved: (1) The restriction of the 12 lots adjacent to Phase I to paired units; (2) The remaining 33 will consist of 23 zero lot line and 10 duplexes, with the developer having the choice of which are zero lot line units; and (3) Modification of Bill of Assurance as to restriction of construction materials. One property owner represented the Association and expressed support for the revised plan. A motion was made and passed for approval of the plan. The vote - 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. • April 26, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: A motion was made to pass this item to the Commission without a recommendation, subject to the appicant: (1) Revising only a portion of the project at this time, since market conditions could change again; (2) Notification of property owners inside the project who are within 200' of the change; and a (3) Investigation as to whether or nor a change would be required in the Bill of Assurence. The vote - 4. ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (March 29, 1983) A formal letter of request was submitted requesting deferral of this -matter to April 26, 1983. The Planning Commission voted on a motion to approve the deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Mr. Joe White of Ed Smith Engineers. Mr. White indicated in a brief presentation to the Commission that the applicant proposes to amend the plat. This comment was followed up on by Chris Barrier, the owner's attorney, who stated that the amendment would include all lots adjacent to Phase I being developed in the same fashion, that is paired units. There were objectors present. Mr. Elijah Cunningham acted as spokesman for the owners in Phase I. He stated that he represented approximately 15 of the owners. He also presented a petition with 15 signatures of the existing 21 owners in Phase I. Mr. Cunningham offered several comments in objection to the proposal and suggested they were not at this time prepared to deal with the proposal. The comment _was made that a deferral would perhaps be in order. The Planning Commission requested comment from the attorney, Mr. Barrier, as to their position relative to a deferral. After a brief discussion, the applicant determined that a two -week deferral would not create significant impediment to their development. The Commission then voted unanimously to defer this item for a period of two weeks until the May loth public hearing. The vote - 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position. 0 April 26, 1983 AM SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued The first phase, which was developed at a density_ of approximately four units per acre, included 42 out of a total of 169 lots approved. Twenty-two of the 42 lots are currently developed along portions of Aspen Drive and Woodlore Circle, which abuts them. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: The applicant is now proposing to modify the approved plan so that 30.15 acres in Phase II will be developed at an increase in density of 4.95 acres. This will be an increase of less than one home per acre, which would serve to reduce the cost of each lot by 20 percent and make the homes more affordable, especially since high development costs have placed existing homes in a higher price market than planned. Other effects of this modification are to: (1) Allow the buyer a choice between detached or attached structures. (2) Allow the Developer the option to construct either structure as the\ market dictates. (3) Decrease the distance 'between structures from 50 feet to 30 feet in attached areas and no less than 10 feet in detached areas. (4) Divide this proposal into three phases with approximately 10 acres and 50 home sites each. C. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: Improvements to Mara Lynn Road to be coordinated with plan to extend Bowman Road from Markham Street to Mara Lynn. D. ANALYSIS: I The problem with this requests stems from a condition which was previously placed upon approval of the project. Because of neighborhood objection, the applicant agreed to provide conventional single family lots with detached structures adjacent to the single family areas on the north. He is now asking to depart from that commitment. In light of this, staff feels that these persons should be properly notified. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff reserves comments until the Subdivision Committee meeting, at which time more information will_ be forthcoming. • U] April 26, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - File No. 161-D NAME: Woodland Hills PUD LOCATION: Mara Lynn Road at a point one-fourth mile east of Napa Valley Drive (east portion of Turtle Creek) DEVELOPER: The Danny Thomas Co. Centre Place Building 21'2 Center 4th Floor, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-2231 ENGINEER: Edward G. Smith & Associates 401 Victory Little Rock, AR Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 30.532 acres NO. OF LOTS: 151 FT. OF NEW ST.: ZONING: "PRD" PROPOSED USES: REQUEST: Single Family To modify an approved preliminary. A. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This proposal represents an innovative approach to residential living that was approved by the Planning Commission on June 9, 1981. The developer described it as an attempt to bring young people and medium income families into the single family ownership market with cost planned at approximately $50,000. High development costs have now placed the existing development in a higher price market than planned. As approved, design was to incorporate two distinct types of housing. One involved a two unit attached structure with each unit on a separate lot. Each owner would own one-half of the structure constructed directly over his lot. These were designed with rear access so as to resemble single family units. Traditional single family housing was to be provided adjacent to homes in the Turtle Creek and Pleasant Tree Subdivisions so as to offer an on -site transition from single family to paired unit development. Lots in this area were to be 7,000 square feet. Item No. 21 - File No. 161-D Woodland Hills PUD NAME: Mara Lynn Road at a point LOCATION: one-fourth mile a Drive (east portion Napa Valley of Turtle Creek) ENGINEER: DEVELOPER: The Danny Thomas Co. Edward G. Smith & Associates 401 Victory Vi Centre Place Building 401 Vi Rock, AR 212 Center Phony: 374-1666 4th Floor, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-2231 AREA: 30.532 acres NO. OF ^LOTS: 151 FTC OF NEW ST.: ZONING: "PRD" PROPOSED USES: Single Family REQUEST: To modify an approved preliminary. A. EXISTING CONDITIONS: ro represents an innovative approach to This proposal that was approved by the Planning residential living r described it income as an attempt Commission on June 9, 1981. The develope_ t to bring young people and medium families into the single family ownership market with cost planned at approximately $50,000. High development costs have now placed the existing development in a higher pncorporatemarket a two distinct ncttypes approved, design was of housing. One involved a two unit attached structure with each unit on a separate one-half of the structureconstructed t. cdirectly h owner wovea hin des ed with rear access as lot. These were family units. Traditional single resembleresemble single fame y family housing was to be provided adjacent to homes in the Turtle Creek and transitioneasant Tfrom ree Ssingle sfamily to ions so s to offer an on -site Lots in this area were to e paired unit development. 7,000 square feet. XP_ SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 21 - Continued The first phase, which was developed at a density of approximately four units per acre, included 42 out of a total of 169 lots approved. Twenty-two of the 42 lots are currently developed along portions of Aspen Drive and Woodlore Circle, which abuts them. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: The applicant is now proposing to modify the approved plan so that 30.15 acres in Phase II will be developed at an increase in density of 4.95 acres. This will be an increase of less than one home per acre, which would serve to reduce the cost of each lot by 20 percent and make the homes more affordable, especially since high development costs have placed existing homes in a higher price market than planned. Other effects of this modification are to: (1) Allow the buyer a choice between detached or attached structures. (2) Allow the Developer the option to construct either structure as the market dictates. (3) Decrease the distance between structures from 50 feet to 30 feet in attached areas and no less than 10 feet in detached areas. (4) Divide this proposal into three phases with approximately 10 acres and 50 home sites each. C. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: Improvements to Mara Lynn Road to be coordinated with plan to extend Bowman Road from Markham Street to Mara Lynn. D. ANALYSIS: The problem with this requests stems from a condition which was previously placed upon approval of the project. Because of neighborhood objection, the applicant agreed to provide conventional single family lots with detached structures adjacent to the single family areas on the north. He is now asking to depart .from that commitment. In light of this, staff feels that these persons should be properly notified. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff reserves comments until the Subdivision Committee meeting, at which time more information will be forthcoming. SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 21 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: A motion was made to pass this item to the Commission without a recommendation, subject to the appicant: (1) Revising only a portion of the project at this time, since market conditions could change again; (2) Notification of property owners inside the project who are within 200' of the change; and (3) Investigation as to whether_ or nor a change would be required in the Bill of Assurence. The vote - 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (March 29, 1983) A formal letter of request was submitted requesting deferral of this matter to April 26, 1983. The Planning Commission voted on a motion to approve the deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Mr. Joe White of Ed Smith Engineers. Mr. White indicated in a brief presentation to the Commission that the applicant proposes to amend the plat. This comment was followed up on by Chris Barrier, the owner's attorney, who stated that the amendment would include all lots adjacent to Phase I being developed in the same fashion, that is paired units. There were objectors present. Mr. Elijah Cunningham acted as spokesman for the owners in Phase I. Fie stated that he represented approximately 15 of the owners. He also presented a petition with 15 signatures of the existing 21 owners in Phase I. Mr. Cunningham offered several comments in objection to the proposal and suggested they were not at this time prepared to deal with the proposal. The comment was made that a deferral would perhaps be in order. The Planning Commission requested comment from the attorney, Mr. Barrier, as to their position relative to a deferral. After a brief discussion, the applicant determined that a two -week deferral would not create significant impediment to their development. The Commission then voted unanimously to defer this item for a period of two weeks until the May loth public hearing. The vote - 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position.