Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0232 Staff AnalysisMay 11, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS item No. 4 - File No. 232 NAME: LOCATION: r TIT 7"T nn LSD . Sidney H. Saleson 582 Oakwood Ave. Lake Forest, I1 60045 Ph: (312) 234-0290 Rainbrook Preliminary/Site Plan Review 1100 Brookside Drive TT 1r,'r L7n 17n . Camino/Jackson/Maune, Inc. Evergreen Professional Bldg. 2 Van Circle Little Rock, AR 72207 Ph: 664-1000 AREA: 5.44 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW STS.,: 0 onMr10i`. PROPOSED USES: Apartments REQUEST: Site plan review of a multiple building site. PROPOSAL: 1. The construction of five two-story buildings and a one-story community building on 5.44 acres. 2. Development according to the following scheme: No. of (a) Unit Types Unit Size Unit Mix Units "A" -- Bldgs. 1,3 680 Sq. Ft. 1-Bedroom 32 "B" -- Bldgs. 2,4 920 Sq. Ft. 2-Bedrooms 32 "C" -- Bldg 5 680/920 Sq. Ft. 8 1-Bedrooms 16 8 2-Bedrooms Total 6400 Sq. Ft. 80 (b) Density - - - 14.7 units per acre (c) Parking spaces - - - 142 May 11, 1982 SfJ13DIVISIONS Item No. 4 — Continued 3. SPECIAL FEATURES (a) Recreation: fence enclosed pool/community building with activity room, rest rooms, office, pool and equipment storage room. (b) Construction: wood frame/hard-board siding. (c) Safety: separation of all units by one hour fire-resistant partitions (d) Handicapped provisions: 8 1-Bedroom Units 8 Parking Spaces (e) Landscaping - The applicant has staged landscaping will be in excess of City requirements. 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 101. 3. "MF-24" zoning districts are characterized by a minimum of 25' setback, side or rear yards equal to the height of the adjacent buildings. This plan complies. 4. Site plan submission requires that the applicant submit a register land survey. This plan complies. 5. 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. May 11, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued 6. Site plan submission requires that the proposal include a topographical cross section of the site. This plan does not comply. 7. Landscaping and screening of vehicular use areas shall be in accordance with the City's Landscaping Ordinance. The applicant has stated his intention to comply. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Brookside Drive must be dedicated. 2. Driveway aprons in street right-of-way shall be 6" concrete. 3. Provide P.E. (Professional Engineer) plans for reconstruction of the drainage inlet shown to be disturbed by the northernmost driveway apron. 4. Minimum floor elevation shall be 356.1' m.s.l. (mean sea level) to clear 100 year flood. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff is not opposed to this proposal as submitted; however, there are some areas where clarification is needed. No right-of-way dedication is shown on Brookside, and there should be 40' proposed. The engineer should indicate whether or not this is platted as an acreage tract or as a part of white Rock Terrace. Also, the setback area should not be measured from the back of the curb, but from the right--of-way line. The applicant should contact abutting property owners about closure of Raintree Lane. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The applicant reported that they had corrected a problem with their survey that would clear up staff's concerns about the Brookside dedication and the legal description. The Committee voted to approve this plat, subject to applicant looking into further closing of Raintree Lane. The vote: 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. May 11, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: There were no objectors present. Mr. Don Johnson was present and offered comments on his application. He stated that their attorney was researching the street closure issue and would pursue if possible. The Commission discussed the plat briefly. The Commission voted to approve the plat and development plan as recommended by the Subdivision Committee. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent (Bill Rector), 1 abstained (Richard Massie). May 11, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4-A -- Discussion of Subdivision Issue on Rainbrook Note: This item was attached to Item No. 4 for purposes of discussion of the need for a final plat and the composition of that plat. The matter at hand was whether the Commission should require the total land in the original ownership be included in this plat or accept a one lot plat. The original tract was improperly subdivided when the Rainbrook site was sold. The staff reported that no public concern or need would be served by involving the entire White Rock terrace plat. It was suggested that a proper one lot plat would suffice. The Commission accepted the one lot approach and included such a motion within the action on Item No. 4.