Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0393 Staff AnalysisL .January 25, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 NAME: LOCATION: r`r��rrr AT TT] Tom Comley 3500-A College Dr. Fayetteville, AR c/o Olan Asbury 926 Savers Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 3.55 acres ZONING: "R-5" Summerhill Apartments Preliminary/Site Plan Review North End of Bob White Drive ENGINEER: 011en Dee Wilson NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 PROPOSED USES: Apartments REQUEST: Site plan review of a multiple building site zoned "R-5." PROPOSAL: 1. The construction of an apartment complex/community buildings on 3.4666 acres. 2. Development according to the following scheme: UNIT TYPE NO. OF UNITS One Bedroom Two Bedroom 12 1 (Manager's Residence) Two Bedroom 40 Total 53 Units 3. Mix Unit Tab: GROSS SQ. BLDG. UNIT/BLDG. TYPE STORY FT./YINIT A 4 1 Bedroom/l Bath 2 780 B 6 2 Bedroom/l 1/2 Bath 2 1,188 C 8 2 Bedroom/1 1/2 Bath 2 1,188 D 6 2 Bedroom/l 1/2 Bath 2 1,188 E 4 2 Bedroom/1 1/2 Bath 2 1,188 F 1 2 Bedroom/1 1/2 Bath 1 1,188 January 25, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued 4. Building coverage will be as follows: (a) Apartments/community buildings .... 29,628 sq. ft. (b) Community bui�ldimg ................ 900 sq. ft. (c) Office (12' x 141.) .............. 168 sq. ft. 5. Paving will be extended 1,855 linear feet. 6. Total parking will include 107 spaces. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. Multifamily subdivisions abutting areas zoned for "R-2" shall provide a 40' buffer and a 6' fence. Parking is allowed -in the buffer area if 15' is left in its natural landscaped state. This plan does not comply. 2. There shall be a side yard on each side of the building having a width of not less than 5'. This plan complies. 3. There shall be a rear yard setback with a depth of not less than 251. This plan complies. 4. All detached buildings shall be separated by a distance of not less than 10'. This plan complies. 5. Minimum site area for "R-5" is 10,000 square feet. This plan complies. 6. The site plan will need to conform to all technical requirements in Section 4-103 of the zoning Ordinance. 7. The proposal must comply with landscaping requirements. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: Access from Bob White Drive appears feasible from engineering point of view provided the adjacent property owner provides additional land or easement. Specific plans for access must be reviewed by the City Engineer_. January 25, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued STAFF ANALYSIS: This proposal includes the southernmost tract of what was once a two -parcel rezoning request, considered before the Commission on May 2, 1968. Both parcels were under separate ownerships; with the tract to the north later being developed as Georgetown Apartments and this tract remaining undeveloped. As a condition of approving the rezoning request, access was to extend north to West 3rd Street and not through Bob White Drive. This was meant to provide some means of protection for the single family area immediately adjacent on the south. The applicant is now proposing to take access From Bob White Drive, which would require purchasing additional lands from a church to the west with street construction. Staff is requesting that the applicant get a firm commitment from this property owner or try to re-establish the previously proposed access relationship with the apartments to the north. Since this is a site plan review for a multiple family development abutting a single family area and in light of the previous Planning Commission action, the Subdivision Committee should decide whether or not notification of property owners is necessary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral until resolution of the access issue. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The applicant agreed to adjust the site plan to reflect 40' of buffer area; however, he felt that it was not wise to consider access through the Georgetown Apartments, since it would not be practical or marketable. The Committee instructed Mr. Asbury to notify property owners within 200' of the development, and asked that the staff present some type of graphic presentation at the agenda session in order that a better perspective of the general area could be gained. Since the Committee members felt that they were not familiar enough with this situation, it was decided to pass this to the Commission without recommendation. January 25, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-14-82) The applicant was present. There were 17 persons present, and a petition with 60 signatures was submitted in opposition to the request. The Commission heard arguments from all interested parties. It was determined that a legal question concerning access to Bob White Drive was a key issue in resolving this request. The Commission voted to approve a motion directing the Planning Staff to work with the City Attorney toward developing a position on the access issue. This position would document for the Commission the commitments made on the original zoning application and the options available to the Commission to resolve this request. The motion included a deferral of the application until the January 25, 1983, Commission meeting. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 nay, 1 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-25-83) Mr. Olan Asbury of Universal Properties represented the developer. Staff reported that the issue remained whether or not access should be allowed from the proposed multifamily development through Bob White Drive, and into what is now a single family neighborhood. At a prior meeting, the staff stated that the construction of Bob White would require additional land from the neighboring church to the west. The owner was unable to obtain the needed land, so a revised plan was submitted which proposed: (1) Construction of Bob White to 25' street; and (2) Elimination of the internal drive next to Georgetown Apartments on the east. Staff maintained its original position of denial of the access because of possible detrimental effects to the single family neighborhood. The City Attorney prepared a legal opinion which said, more or less, that the Commission as an administrative body, had the power to approve or deny the plan. During discussion of the issue, several persons spoke. Mr. Asbury, the applicant, shed some light on the historical facts of the case and the impracticality and problems with pursuing any alternative points of access. Mr. Fred Mackey, the developer's attorney, and Mr. Tom Comley, the January 25, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued - developer, both spoke favorably for the development and requested that access be allowed through Bob White Drive. Mrs. Sue Weddle, an adjacent property owner to the south, expressed concern that the south drive would be within 10' of her property. It was discussed as to whether or not the drive to the south could be shifted away from her property. Mr. Richard Caulder, the architect for the project, stated that he could make the appropriate revisions for this. A motion was made for approval, subject to: (1) the applicant approaching the church in an effort to gain the ` 12' of their property for the construction of Bob White, with the approval of the City Engineers; or (2) the internalization of the drive and parking on the south, so that the building is behind the drive, and at least 25' from the property line. The Commission agreed that the first condition was optional, and the second is mandatory. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absent, 2 abstentions, 1 open position (the no votes - Betty Sipes and William Ketcher) (abstaining - Richard.Massie and Jerilyn Nicholson). Item No. 2 - Z-3893 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Randy Kerr Don Bailey SW Corner Baseline and Dailey Dr. Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Commercial Development 29,744 square feet + Mobile Home Sales Lot SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Residential, Zoned "R-2" South - Mobile Home Subdivision, Zoned "R-2" East - Residential, Zoned "R-2" West - Commercial, Zoned "R-2" STAFF COMMENTS: On October 12, 1982, the Planning Commission voted 8 ayes, 1 no and 2 absent to recommend "0-3" General Office for this property with the proviso that the applicant would then be able to file for a conditional use permit to permit a Smackey's Restaurant on the site. When the applicant came back with his application for a conditional use permit for the November 9 Planning Commission meeting, the matter was deferred to December 14. On December 14, the matter was once again deferred to January 25. The applicant, in the face of the opposition to the conditional use permit from staff, wishes now to ask the Planning Commission to reconsider the original request for "C-3" General Commercial zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present, and staff stated that it had tried to contact the applicant to ascertain his desires and had been unsuccessful. On that basis, staff stated that it felt the applicant wished to give up on this issue at the moment and suggested that the conditional use permit portion of the request be withdrawn from further consideration and that staff be directed to forward the original recommendation for "0-3" General Office zoning on this property to the Board of Directors for its action. The Item No. 2 - Continued Planning Commission moved to approve a staff to send its 110-3" recommendation motion passed - 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 :notion directing to the Board, and the vacancy.