The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutS-0213 Staff AnalysisJuly 13, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 18 Al 'A RAT . LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Apt. House Builders P.O. Box 959 N.L.R., AR 72115 Phone: 758-2842 AREA: 6 acres ZONING: "MF-18" PROPOSED USES: Oak Ridge Apartments - Site Plan Review Mabelvale Cut-off West of Geyer Springs Road T l�l /. TINT TIT /T Tf'/.T7TTL�/lT. Bozeman & Associates 570 Prospect Building Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: 664-2405 NO. OF LOTS: 1 Multifamily FT. OF NEW ST: 523' 1. The construction of a 64 unit complex on six acres. 2. Development according to the following scheme: Unit Type Unit Size (A) Type 1 B,E,F 82' x 45.6' Type 2 A,D 128' x 48.6' Type 3 C 99' x 48.6' Unit Mix # of Units (B) 1 bedroom 32 (2 handicapped) 2 bedrooms 26 (2 handicapped) 3 bedrooms 6 Total 64 units 3. Schedule of Land Use Area: Total Land Area - 261,500 sq.ft. = 6.0 acres 40' Dedication for Street Right-of-way - 20,920 sq.ft. Net Land Area - 240,580 sq.ft. = 5.52 acres Building Area - 28,000 sq.ft. + = 10.7% of net Bldg. Area Covered Breezeways and Porches - 1,380 sq.ft. Trash Enclosures - 696 sq.ft. Walks and Paving - 50,209 sq.ft. = 21% of Net Yards and landscaped Areas - 157,357 sq.ft. = 655 of net July 13, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 18 - Continued 4. The provisions of 108 parking spaces, plus six spaces specifically designated for the handicapped. PROPOSED USES: Apartments SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposals considered under "MF-18" 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 10'. 3. Parking requirements for multifamily dwellings are 1.5 parking spaces per unit. This plan complies. 4. "MF-18" zoning districts are characterized by a minimum of a 25' setback, side and rear yards equal to the height of the adjacent buildings. This plan complies. 5. Site plan submission requires that the applicant submit a registered land survey. This plan complies. 6. Site plan submission requires the applicant to submit quantitative data that includes proposed building coverage of principle and accessory buildings, parcel size, proposed floor area and proposed number of parking spaces. This plan complies. 7. *Site plan submission requires that the proposal include a topographical cross-section of the site. This plan does not comply (see staff comments). 8. Landscaping and screening of vehicular use area shall be in accordance with the City's Landscaping Ordinance. This plan complies. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: Require Mabelvale Cutoff to be improved to minor arterial standards: 1/2 48' street right-of-way with 4' sidewalks along property line, as shown on proposal. Floodplain regulations apply to this project. • July 13, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 18 - Continued STAFF ANALYSIS: No problems of significance were apparent in the proposal as presented. Staff is suggesting, however, that the applicant indicate elevations of corners on the plan in -lieu of the usual requirements for topographical cross-section. This is because the land for this site is flat, and cross --sections mainly show the elevations between buildings and their relationship in areas that are more hilly. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments by Planning and Engineering. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: John Kincannon represented the applicant. He was advised by the Committee to submit a letter of intent in regards to compliance with the City's Landscaping Ordinance. The Committee moved to approve the plan, subject to comments by Planning and Engineering. The vote was: 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-9-82) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors. Staff reported that the letter of intent had been received from the applicant; and that there were no significant problems with the proposal. A motion was made for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent (Scribner, Sipes and Nicholson were absent). July 13, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 18 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Apt. House Builders P.O. Box 959 N.L.R., AR 72115 Phone: 758-2842 AREA: 6 acres ZONING: "MF-18" PROPOSED USES: Oak Ridge Apartments - Site Plan Review Mabelvale Cut-off West of Geyer Springs Road ENGINEER/ARCHITECT: Bozeman & Associates 570 Prospect Building Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: 664-2405 NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST: 523' 3 Multifamily PROPOSAL: 1. construction of a 64 unit complex on six acres. 2. Development according to the following scheme: Unit T e Unit Size (A) Type 1 B,E,F 82' x 45.6' 128' x 48.6' Type 2 A,D C 99' x 48.6' Type 3 Unit Mix # of Units 32 (2 handicapped) (B) 1 bedroom 26 (2 handicapped) 2 bedrooms 6 3 bedrooms Total 64 units 3. Schedule of Land Use Area: Total Land Area - 261,500 sq.ft. = 6.0 acres 40' Dedication for Street Right-of-way - 20,920 sq.ft. = 5.52 acres Net Land Area - - 240,580 28,000 sq.-ft. sq.ft. + = 10.7% of net Building Area Bldg. Area Covered Breezeways and - 1,380 sq.ft. Porches 696 sq.ft. Trash Enclosures - 50,209 sq.ft. = 21% of Net Walks and Paving Yards and landscaped - 157,357 sq.ft. = 655 of net Areas July 13, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 18 - Continued 4. The provisions of 108 parking spaces, plus six spaces specifically designated for the handicapped. PROPOSED USES: Apartments SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposals considered under 'IMF-18" 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 10'. 3. Parking requirements for multifamily dwellings are 1.5 parking spaces pen -unit. This plan complies. 4. 'IMF-18" zoning districts are characterized by a minimum of a 25' setback, side and rear yards equal to the height of the adjacent buildings. This plan complies. 5. Site plan submission requires that the applicant submit a registered land survey. This plan complies. 6. Site plan submission requires the applicant to submit quantitative data that includes proposed building coverage of principle and accessory buildings, parcel size, proposed floor area and proposed number of parking spaces. This plan complies. 7. *Site plan submission requires that the proposal include a topographical cross-section of the site. This plan does not comply (see staff comments). 8. Landscaping and screening of vehicular use area shall be in accordance with the City's Landscaping Ordinance. This plan complies. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: Require Mabelvale Cutoff to be improved to minor arterial standards: 1/2 48' street right-of-way with 4' sidewalks along property line, as shown on proposal. Floodplain regulations apply to this project. July 13, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 18 - Continued STAFF ANALYSIS: No problems of significance were apparent in the proposal as presented. Staff is suggesting, however, that the applicant indicate elevations of corners on the plan in -lieu of the usual requirements for topographical cross-section. This is because the land for this site is flat, and cross -sections mainly show the elevations between buildings and their relationship in areas that are more hilly. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments by Planning and Engineering. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: �T r �_. y John Kincannon represented the applicant. He was advised by the Committee to submit a letter of intent in regards to compliance with the C ity's Landscaping Ordinance. The Committee moved to approve the plan, subject to comments by Planning and Engineering. The vote was: 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-9-82) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors. Staff reported that the letter of intent had been received from the applicant; and that there were no significant problems with the proposal. A motion was made for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent (Scribner, Sipes and Nicholson were absent). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-13-82) This matter was returned to the Planning Commission for amended site plan review. The staff pointed out that the only change is by way of removing all buildings from the 100 Year Floodplain. The architect presented to staff a revised plan, which was determined to be acceptable. The Commission voted 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent to accept the amended plan and revise final plat.