Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4252 Staff AnalysisMeeting Date: 11-13-84 Item No.: Z-4252 Location: Approximately 300' South of Mabelvale Pike and Grace Street Intersection, east side of Mabelvale Pike Developer/Engineer: Terry Southall/Phillips, Engineering Co. Existinq Status: Vacant Proposed Use: Apartments Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to the demonstration by the applicant that he could design the project to meet the minimum of 108 parking spaces, 20' internal drives, provide the usual buffer requirements, with the fence stopping a short distance from the property, and reduce the number of units by four to comply with a previous commitment made by the developer. Staff later modified its position to acceptance of a lesser buffer requirement only if the fence was provided. Planning Commission Action: Approval of the revised plan with 60 units and 93 parking spaces, the relocation of the pool and the reflection of an 8" on-site service line. Recommendation Forwarded By: 9 ayes, 1 nay, and 1 absent There were several persons present in objection on both dates that the item was considered. Spokespersons were Ms. Fonda Lile and Ms. Joan Adcock. A petition with 30 signatures in objection was submitted. Major objections included the possible increase of traffic and noise, destabilization of existing neighyorhood, and fear of inadequate enforcement of landscaping/ buffer requirements due.to past experience with other approvals in the area. November 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B NAME: Wirtz's Replat Short Form "PRD" (Z-4252) LOCATION: Approximately 300 Feet South of Intersection of Mabelvale Pike and Grace Street, East Side of Mabelvale Pike AGENT: ENGINEER: Terry Southerall Phillips Engineering Co. 664-2469 or 225-8127 806 North University CMTW Company Little Rock, AR 19 Longlea Little Rock, AR 72212 (Boyd Montgomery 227-7675) AREA: 2.83 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R -54'/"C-3" PROPOSED USES: Apartments PLANNING DISTRICT: 12 CENSUS TRACT: 20.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A.' Site History This item was reviewed by the Commission on August 28, 1984, as a request for rezoning from "R-5" and "C-3" to "R-5" for the purpose of constructing multifamily units. After a discussion, which included five objectors from the neighborhood, it was decided that the item should be deferred to the October 9th Public Hearing and refiled as a short form "PUD." Due to the stability and attractiveness of the immediate single family neighborhood, staff felt that it would not be approprite to develop as "R-5" and without seeing a specific Site Development Plan. It was felt that development should not exceed "MF -12." The applicant stated, however, that there was a sale pending for the property which required it to be developed as "MF -24"; also, that his plans did not include over 68 units. November 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued B. Proposal 1. The construction of 72 multifamily units on 2.83 acres. 2. Development schedule: Unit No. Unit Type Unit Size 36 2 bedroom 720 square feet 36 1 bedroom 576 square feet 3. Amenities/other to include: 1 resident manager's unit, 1 club room and 1 swimmng pool. 4. Landscaping will consist of earth mounds with shrubs to screen development from Mabelvale Pike, lighted islands and parking area. Several large trees on the site will be incorporated into the design. 5. Parking - 86 spaces. C. Engineering Comments 1. Dedicate right-of-way on Mabelvale Pike to collector standards. 2. Improve Mablevale Pike to collector standards. 3. Provide a more detailed parking plan. D. Analysis As stated previously, this site was originally submitted for review as rezoning and has now been resubmitted as a "PUD" at the request of the Planning Commission. Our major concern relates to the design of the project. The applicant must demonstrate that he can provide the 108 parking spaces and minimum of 20' internal drives that are required. His proposal indicates plans for only 86 spaces. This represents a deficit of 22 spaces. The applicant is also requested to clarify the number of floors and the height of the building. To address the need for a buffer/screening device to protect the neighboring single family residences, the usual 6' November 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued fence and 40/25' buffer is required on the north and south perimeters of the property. The fence should stop a short distance from the west property line so as to prevent a site distance problem. Contact Environmental Codes about the nature and extent of required landscaping. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to the comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of the item. Water Works Comments - An 8" on-site fire service is required. Acreage charges will apply. A pro rata charge will also apply if a new connection is needed for Lot 1 to an existing 24" in University. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Five persons from the neighborhood were present in objection. Staff pointed out that the proposed plan was short six parking spaces, and was four units in excess of the previous density commitment. It did not comply with the usual buffer requirements, but staff felt that the buffer area could be varied in this instance, provided the fence is constructed. Ms. Fonda Lile of 6909 Mabelvale Pike represented herself and her parents, who reside at 6907 Mabelvale Pike. Ms. Joann Adcock, another resident, also voiced objections. Opposition was based on a fear of added traffic and noise, interruption of security of an established neighborhood where only rental property is owned by persons in the area and no absentee landlord situations are apparent. Ms. Lile stated that several rezonings in the area were opposed by residents previously, but were passed by the Commission. She also stated that several previous requirements for landscaping/screening on different proposals in the area have not been adequately enforced. The Commission felt that there should be no sympathy for waivers on parking and density. The applicant asked to delay the request for 30 days so that the plan can be revised. A motion for approval of the request for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. November 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant submitted a revised plan with 60 units, 93 parking spaces and a 6' fence. There was some discussion regarding revising the parking on the east side, reducing the amount of pavement on the south side, and providing a fence tapered down to 30" at the property line. Water Works - An 8" on-site fire service is required. Acreage charges will apply. A pro rata charge will also apply if a new connection is needed for Lot 1 to an existing 24" main in University. PLANNING COMMISSION• - --- ACTION: (11-13-84) lam-. .--•- The applicant, Mr. Terry Southall, was present. He made a presentation of his revised plan outlining the changes directed by the Subdivision Committee. The Planning staff pointed out the requirement for the 8 -inch on-site fire service water line. This line is to be indicated on the approved plan. There were several objectors present. Two persons addressed their concerns to the Commission. They were Fonda Lile and Joan Adcock. A petition of objection was offered with 30 + signatures. A general discussion of the proposal followed, with additional changes suggested by Commission members, specifically, the movement of the swimming pool from its present location on Mabelvale Pike to the area adjacent to the east property line. A motion was made to approve the application as reflected on the revised plan, plus moving the pool area from the front yard to the rear yard. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 1 noes and 1 absent.