Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0313-A Staff AnalysisApril 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: John A. Rees Company Investment Properties 13401 Beckenham Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Phone: 224-0432 Yorktowne Apartments Long Form "PRD" NW Corner of Rodney Parham and West Capitol ENGINEER: Steve Sharp/Sewell Architects 10020 Rodney Parham, Suite C Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: 374-9219 AREA: 6.6 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 ZONING: "MF-24"/"0-3" PROPOSED USES: Multifamily apartments A. Site Histor FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 A previous proposal for a multifamily development of nine fourplexes was approved by the Commission in mid-1983. During that time, it was pointed out that the City had a drainage project which would require the purchase or condemnation of 25' to 30' along the western edge of this property. B. Development Objectives �. The enhancement of the area by the construction of luxury apartments and the provision of convenient, enjoyable living -conditions to many families in Little Rock, 2. The creation of a New England look and mood by the construction of a Williamsburg -type appearance that would require a minimal amount of maintenance due to the use of all brick. 3. To help satisfy the overwhelming demand in the City for onerbedroom units by providing a choice of styles and more of this type of unit. 4. To begin construction around April or May of 1984, with the construction period lasting six to nine months. April 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued C. Development Proposal 1. The construction of a 178 unit apartment complex on 6.6 acres. 2. Development Schedule Unit Type Unit No. Unit Size One -Bedroom Flat 60 Units 500 sq. ft. One -Bedroom Town House 60 Units 640 sq. ft. Two -Bedroom 58 Units 1000 sq. ft. 3. Parking - 285 spaces 4. Amenities are to include a swimming pool, laundry room to service the smaller one -bedroom units, and office and recreation room. The units will be carpeted with the provision of refrigerators, washer/dryer connections, electric stoves, ovens and disposals. D. Engineering Comments 1. Dedicate right-of-way and improve 5th Street to residential street standards. 2. Close the drives for Rodney Parham by installing curb/gutter. 3. The 30' drainage structure previously planned on the western boundary of this project is no longer needed. 4. Submit internal drainage plan for this development. E. Analysis Staff is not opposed to the proposal presented. Since this is a Long Form PUD, the applicant must provide added information relative to floor plans, elevations and cross sections, building to land and open space ratios. Landscaping must meet City requirements. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. April 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Since the applicant was not present, there was no review on the item. Water Works has reported that: (1) This proposal needs proper road dedication; on Fifth Street one-half of a 50-foot right-of-way and on Rodney Parham one-half of an 80-foot right-of-way. (2) A 5-foot easement is required adjoining the north right-of-way of Fifth Street. (3) A 15-foot easement is required adjoining the west right-of-way of Rodney Parham. (4) A 15-foot easement is required of on -site facilities. An acreage charge of $150 per acre will be assessed on water connection. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were objectors from the neighborhood in attendance. Staff reported that the Fire Department had requested a cul-de-sac or street exit on the long north/south drive. The applicant stated objections to complying with this since it would reduce the size of the building on the north. Approximately five persons spoke. Among the speakers were (1) a gentleman for 7809 Apache Road, who objected to the possibility of increosed traffic and crime; (2) the resident, who resides on the corner of Apache and Cunningham Lake, who complained of a drainage problem due to the spillover from Cunningham Lake and possible traffic problems and crime; (3) Mr. Gary Smith of 409 Sunnymeade, who was concerned about drainage, litter and traffic problems; and (4) Mr. Ed Brown of 3015 Rodney Parham, who opposed the use because of the traffic to be generated. A female resident was concerned about drainage problems. Other concerns expressed involved adequate buffering. Since the applicant was not present at the Subdivision Committee meeting, the Commission decided to send the proposal back to that Committee, with instructions for members to look at the fire comments, possibility of reducing the density, added buffers and drainage problems. The motion for a 30-day deferral was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. April 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant submitted a revised plan that provided a fire lane and reduced the parking spaces to 274. Staff pointed out that the applicant should try and modify this plan since the new fire lane intruded into an area that should provide a buffer between the single family area. He was told that the cause of some of his problems with the drives was because of denseness. He was advised to look at density. Several questions were raised about reported soil problems. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3-13-84) The applicant was present. A revised plan was submitted, which provided turnaround as requested by the Fire Department, a 30' buffer area on the west, and a reduction to 172 units. Staff stated that it was still concerned with the density of the project and would not support a density exceeding "MF-24." Several property owners from the neighborhood were in attendance. Mr. James Huntsman of 7900 West 5th submitted a petition from people in Sunnymeade. Two requests were made: (1) The 6' concrete wall without openings along the rear of the Sunnymeade property line, (2) Lots to face the east away from the homes. Mr. Gary Smith of 409 Sunnymeade, Mr. Martin Abels of 415 Sunnymeade, and Mr. H.R. Copeland of 307 Sunnymeade expressed concerns about drainage. They basically felt that drainage problems were worsened with development in the area and that the concrete wall would help contain the flow.- The applicant agreed to provide the wall and reduce the units to "MF-25." The Commission informed the applicant that the eastern portion of the site plan should be redesigned since the parking area did not appear to be well arranged relative to the location of units. They felt that this was due to the denseness of the project and recommended that he reduce it to "MF-24." Finally, a motion to approve the site plan with a maximum of 158 units ("MF-24"), subject to redesigning of the project so it does not adversely affect the drainage problem to the west and that all lights are shielded so as not to shine west. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. April 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (3-29-84) The applicant was present. A revised plan was submitted by the applicant. It reflected a rearrangement of buildings and parking, a reduction in building sizes and number of units. The proposed density is to be according to "MF-24" with a total °dedo 5$units pass the revisedplan to the City parkingspaces. Committee decided Board.