Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0026 Staff AnalysisJ FA May 12, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 -�Galleria ,Apts. Site Plan Review LOCATION: Satterfield Drive approximately 400' from the northwest intersection of Rodney Parham and Satterfield DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Fausett Development Co. Edward G. Smith and Associates P.O. Box 5730 401 Victory Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR T T/1T/�I1 w r 1. The construction of 76 apartment units, plus office/laundry and pool on 4.66 acres of land zoned "MF-24." 2. The construction of the following building types: Buildinq -No. Size Gross Area Apartments 2 22' x 142' 5,300' + 12 3,4,5 and 6 52' x 51' 18,400' + 32 10 42' x 104' 7,000' + 8 12, 13 42' x 156' 22,200' + 24 3. The plan conforms to most of the bulk and area requirements, except for s side yard setback, which will be considered by the Board of Adjustment. 4. The provision of 1.8 acres in natural open space. 5. The provision of 2.8 acres in landscaped open space. 6. The provision of 47,800 square feet in paved area. 7. The provision of 130 parking spaces, including eight designated for the handicapped. l May 12, 1981 40 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued USES PROPOSED Apartment complex. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Detached buildings should be separated by a distance of not less than 10'. This plan complies. 2. The minimum site area for "MF-24" districts is one acre. This plan complies. 3. The provision of a minimum 40' buffer strip and a 6' fence when abutting residential use is required on eastern boundary of the property. The plan indicates a 50' landscaped area. 4. The detailed plan in conformance with Landscape Ordinance No. 13,617 should be submitted to Environmental Codes. This proposal complies. 'r ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS The 100-year flood line shown on the plat should be the floodway line. Sidewalks are required along Satterfield. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff has no opposition to the plan as designed. However, upon investigating this site, we were concerned that the natural buffer area adjacent to the residential area on the east had been eliminated. Staff feels that this 50' area should be replanted and reconstructed in its natural state with plants that are indigenous to the area. It is not known whether or not the applicant will provide a 6' opaque fence, as required by Ordinance. Staff feels that the principle entry point off Satterfield should be reconstructed as a driveway instead of a 27' street as indicated on the plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval as filed, subject to Engineering's and Staff's comments. 0 0 May 12, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Committee decided that a 6' fence should also be required on the northern portion of the property where it abuts a residential use. Because of Grassy Flat Creek which runs through this property, the applicant was instructed to work out the location of this fence with Staff. The Committee voted for approval subject to: (1) The construction of a 6' opaque fence on the northern and eastern boundaries; (2) The reconstruction and replanting of a 50' buffer area on the east; (3) The reconstruction of the principle entry point off Satterfield as a driveway instead of a 27' street; and (4) Changing the 100-year flood line, indicated on the plat, to the floodway line. The vote was unanimous: 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The applicant was not present when this item was considered for review.* The engineer for the project, Mr. Joe White, stated that the owner was not in agreement with Staff's and Subdivision Committee's recommendations for the construction of a 6' opaque fence on the top bank of the creek an the northern end of the property. Since the owner considered the physical make-up of this portion of the property to be an adequate buffer between the development and the abutting single family residences, a request for omission of the requirement was made. This was to no avail. The Commission responded by making a motion in favor of the Subdivision Committee's recommendation of approval, subject to the four items specified, which include the construction of the fence on the top bank of Grassy Flat Creek. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. *During the latter part of the meeting, the applicant requested that he be allowed to speak in behalf of the proposal and present his concerns relative to the fence. He was denied the opportunity due to the fact that the item had already been voted on by the Commission. Ale a August 11, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Galleria A is - Site Plan Review LOCATION: Satterfield Drive approximately T 400' from the northwest intersection of Rodney Parham and Satterfield DEVELOPER: Sharon Cain for Fausett Development Co. P.O. Box 5730 Little Rock, AR REQUEST: ENGINEER: Edward G. Smith and Associates 401 Victory Little Rock, AR Reconsideration of the fencing requirement passed by the Commission at the May Public Hearing. PROPOSED USES: Apartment complex. STAFF ANALYSIS: This request was filed by the developer after having missed the Planning Commission meeting in May, at which time the site plan was approved. The Commission discussed screening at length, with the result that a 6' board fence was required along both the east and the north sides. Staff position is much the same as before; i.e., that screening be required by this developer inasmuch as most of the screening of adjacent lots is not of a permanent nature. The fence should be required along the east property line and along the south top of bank along the creek. NOTE: In prior actions, the Subdivision Committee made no recommendation because only two members were present, and the Planning Commission at its July 14 meeting could not achieve the necessary votes to deal with this issue either way, being deadlocked at 5 ayes, 2 noes and 4 absent. The applicant has requested that this item be deferred to the August 11 Planning Commission meeting so that additional information can be prepared for consideration. Staff recommends deferral. r` August 11, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued COMMISSION ACTION: (July 28, 1981) The Commission moved to defer consideration of this matter to the August 11 meeting. The motion was passed - 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Sharon Cain, representing Fausett Development Company, gave a brief presentation, during which the Commission was shown pictures of the northern and eastern boundaries of the property. Ms. Cain requested that 17 river birches be used for screening purposes in -lieu of the required fence on both sides of the property. Two separate motions were made to this effect. The first motion, for a waiver of the requirement along the North line, failed for lack of an affirmative vote: 4 ayes, 5 nays, 2 absent. The second motion, for a waiver of the fence along the East and acceptance of the developer's proposal for screening, was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent. *Note: "No" votes - Commissioners Turner, Schlereth, Nicholson, Arnett and Johnson. 41