The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutS-0019-B Staff AnalysisMay 11, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS File No. 19-B Item No. 1 - Green Mountain Apartment Preliminary/Site Plan Review LOCATION: Green Mountain and Rainwood DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Green Mtn. Joint Venture Hodges Firm and Associates Hodges Firm & Assoc. P.O. Box 7416 P.O. Box 7416 Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 72217 Phone: 664-5000 AREA: 5.75 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "C-4" PROPOSE❑ USES: Apartments PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. REQUEST: For site plan review of a multiple building site. 1. The construction of a 120-unit complex on 5.75 acres. 2. Development according to the following scheme: Unit Type No. of Units Sq. Ft./Unit Total 5 . Ft. A-1 24 663 15,912 B-1 56 790 44,240 B-2 40 850 34,000 94,152 R May 11, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued 3. The provision of a density of 21 units per acre. 4. The provision of 217 spaces for parking. PROPOSED USES: Apartments SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposals considered under "MF-24" zoning districts must have a minimum site -area of one acre. This plan complies. 2. All detached buildings in the zoning district shall be separated by a distance of not less than 101. 3. Parking requirements for multifamily dwellings are 1.5 parking spaces per unit. 4. "MF-24" zoning districts are characterized by a minimum of a 25' setback, side and rear yards -equal to the height of the adjacent buildings. 5. Site plan submission requires the applicant to submit quantitative data that includes proposed buidling coverage of principal and accessory buildings, parcel size, proposed floor area and proposed number of parking spaces. This plan complies. 6. The Subdivision Ordinance requires residential subdivisions fronting on collector streets to have a 30' setback. This plan complies. 7. Landscaping and screening of vehicular use areas shall be in accordance with the City's Landscaping Ordinance. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Complete the construction of the incompletely constructed drainage system which lies within the existing dedicated easement, and present drainage system for a final inspection. May 11, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued 2. Provide 4' sidewalk along Green Mountain Drive. ANALYSIS: This property was previously platted as Berkshire Place, a 10-lot commercial subdivision. This proposal then, really involves a replat of these lots, with the exception of what was once Lot 7, the only portion of the former plat which has been finaled. An existing street system from past platting actions is in place. The applicant has indicated that he will incorporate it into the proposal. Staff only suggests that the internal service/access easements be platted to at least 45'. The only other issue of any significance involves the failure to provide 30' setbacks on the collector streets. Also, there are a few technical nonconformities, which will have to be resolved before the plat is finaled. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments by Planning and Engineering. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (2-25-82) The applicant was present. The Committee voted to approve this item, subject to: 1. Complete construction of the incompletely constructed drainage system which lies within the existing dedicated easement, and present drainage system for a final inspection. 2. Provision of 4' sidewalk along Green Mountain Drive. 3. Platting the internal service/access easement to at least 45.' 4. 30' setbacks on both collector streets. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 11, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3-9-82) Mr. Bob Lowe represented the applicant. There were 12 persons present in opposition from an adjacent condominum development. The spokesman for the group was their attorney, Mr. Jack Young. Mr. Young reported that none of his clients had been contacted or had received formal notification from the applicant; therefore, he stated that they were unable to determine the full impact of the development. It was requested that the Commission allow them reasonable time to acquaint themselves with the plans. Staff reported that according to procedure, no notification to the property owners was required since this application involved: (1) down -zoning as a by -right activity, (2) site plan review of the plat with multiple building structures. The Ordinance does not require notices to be sent in these instances. The applicant was instructed to get together with the opposers before the March 30th Public Hearing. A motion for deferment was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.