Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0334 Staff AnalysisDecember 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D NAME: Lanehart Apartments LOCATION: NE Corner of Honeysuckle and Lanehart, East of Stagecoach DEVELOPER: APPLICANT: Edco Construction Barry Young 6420 Mabelvale Cutoff Little Rock, AR 72209 568-1197 AREA: 6.48 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: Outside City PROPOSED USES: Apartments PLANNING DISTRICT: 12 CENSUS TRACT: 24.02 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. Site History None. B. Proposal (1) The construction of 128 units of apartments on a building site of 6.48 acres. (2) Project Data a. The project will consist of eight buildings with 16 units in each. b. Each unit will be 800 square feet flats consisting of two -bedrooms and a bath. C. The units will stack 8 on 8 and a staircase landing for the upper ones will be provides. d. Paved parking will be provided according to Ordinance standards. e. The applicant has stated that "adequate landscaping will be provided." December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D - Continued f. Ten percent of units adapted for handicap use. C. Fngineerinq Comments (1) A Master Street Plan issue conflicts with this plan. The 65th Street/Sh ackleford Road connection crosses this property. (2) The Engineering Division has a consultant under contract to fix the alignment of the 65th/Shackleford Street; request that applicant meet the City Engineer to discuss the situation. D. Analysis This project is currently located out of the City but in the referendum area. This complicates the approval procedure since if the item is approved it will have to come back to the Commission for rezoning to a district that allows apartments. If it is not built before the annexation passes, then it may not get zoned. Another major issue for discussion has been raised by the City Engineers. It involves the location of a proposed intersection of two arterials through this property. This will need to be resolved. There may be a problem with sewer service. At the time of writing, no information had been received from Wastewater. Technically, the submitted plan is deficient. It does not indicate needed dimensions, adequate parking spaces for the 128 units in its layout, and does not show the on -site fire lines and water hydrants. A landscaping plan should be submitted. Please submit three copies of a revised plan to the staff before the Commission meets. Fire Department approval must be obtained. E. Staff Recommendation Deferral until issues are resolved. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D - Continued F. Subdivision Committee Review The Committee reviewed the application and requested that the applicant submit a revised plan conforming to technical requirements and meet with City engineers to resolve the Master Street Plan issue. The Committee expressed dissatisfaction with the design of the project. -The applicant was asked to consider some redesign. PLANNING COMMMISSION ACTION: (11-13-84) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Inasmuch as the applicant failed to attend the meeting, and deferral had been recommended, a motion to defer was offered. The motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Due to the applicant's absence, the item was not reviewed by the Committee. LANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-18-84) A motion for withdrawal, as requested by the applicant, was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 open. November 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 NAME: r �nrmT^%I. r%nT7V-1r nnL+n . Edco Construction 6420 Mabelvale Cutoff Little Rock, AR 72209 568-1197 Lanehart Apartments NE Corner of Honeysuckle and Lanehart, East of Stagecoach APPLICANT: Barry Young AREA: 6.48 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 ZONING: Outside City PROPOSED USES: Apartments PLANNING DISTRICT: 12 CENSUS TRACT: 24.02 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. Site History None. B. Proposal FT. NEW STREET: 0 (1) The construction of 128 units of apartments on a building site of 6.48 acres. (2) Project Data a. The project will consist of eight buildings with 16 units in each. b. Each unit will be 800 square feet flats consisting of two -bedrooms and a bath. C. The units will stack 8 on 8 and a staircase landing for the upper ones will be provides. d. Paved parking will be provided according to Ordinance standards. e. The applicant has stated that "adequate landscaping will be provided." November 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued f. Ten percent of units adapted for handicap use. C. Engineering Comments (1) A Master Street Plan issue conflicts with this plan. The 65th Street/Shackleford Road connection crosses this property. (2) The Engineering Division has a consultant under contract to fix the alignment of the 65th/Shackleford Street; request that applicant meet the City Engineer to discuss the situation. D. Analysis This project is currently located out of the City but in the referendum area. This complicates the approval procedure since if the item is approved it will have to come back to the Commission for rezoning to a district that allows apartments. If it is not built before the annexation passes, then it may not get zoned. Another major issue for discussion has been raised by the City Engineers. It involves the location of a proposed intersection of two arterials through this property. This will need to be resolved. There may be a problem with sewer service. At the time of writing, no information had been received from Wastewater. Technically, the submitted plan is deficient. It does not indicate needed dimensions, adequate parking spaces for the 128 units in its layout, and does not show the on -site fire lines and water hydrants. A landscaping plan should be submitted. Please submit three copies of a revised plan to the staff before the Commission meets. Fire Department approval must be obtained. E. Staff Recommendation Deferral until issues are resolved. November 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued F. Subdivision Committee Review The Committee reviewed the application and requested that the applicant submit a revised plan conforming to technical requirements and meet with City engineers to resolve the Master Street Plan issue. The Committee expressed dissatisfaction with the design of the project. The applicant was asked to consider some redesign. PLANNING COMMMISSION ACTION: (11-13-84) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Inasmuch as the applicant failed to attend the meeting, and deferral had been recommended, a motion to defer was offered. The motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.