Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0500 Staff AnalysisJuly 12, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - File No. 422 NAME: River's Edge Apts., Phase I Site Plan Review LOCATION: NW Corner of Rebsamen Park Rd. and Riverfront Drive River's Edge Apts. Garver and Garver Suite 210 Commercial Bank Bldg. ARCHITECT: Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-4125 Savage, Robinson and Wassell 8500 W. Markham Little Rock, AR Phone: 227-5665 APPLICANT: John Kooistra AREA: 6.18 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "MF-18" PROPOSED USES: Apartments REQUEST: Site plan reivew of a multiple building site. A. History of the Site None. B. Proposal (1) The construction of the first phase of the development, which will include two apartment buildings on 6.18 acres. July 12, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued (2) Development Schedule (Phase I) (a) No. of Units Unit Type Unit Size Total " A" 32 (1 Bedroom/l Bath) 600 sq. ft. 19,200 sq. ft. "B" 12 (2 Bedroom/l Bath) 1,000 sq. ft. 12_,000 sq. ft. 44 Total Units 31,200 sq. ft. (b) Subsequent Development: Eighty additional units to be added in one or two phases. (3) Parking, Driveway and Access: Phase I ....................... 77 Parking Spaces Future Phases 216 Spaces (4) Physical Construction: Wood frame/brick veneer with prefabricated roof trusses, composition shingle roofing and natural wood highlights, foundation will be concrete slab or grade, concrete sidewalks, asphalt parking and drives. (5) Ownership (1) Current Owners ....... Pleasant Valley, Inc. (2) Future Owners ........ River's Edge Partners SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS "MF-18" Districts. 1. All exterior yards abutting dedicated public streets shall have a depth of 25 feet. This plan complies. 2. All interior yards or yards abutting interior property lines or any lots of record shall have a depth equal to the height of any proposed building or structure. This plan complies. July 12, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued 3. All detached buildings shall be separated by a distance of not less than 10 feet. This plan complies. 4. Site area should be a minimum of one acre. The plan complies. 5. Parking is not allowed in the setback area for "MF-18" Districts. This plan does not comply.* 6. Residential developments abutting collector streets should have a minimum setback of 30 feet. This plan complies. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: None. ANALYSIS: This project has been submitted for site plan review of the initial phase. Subsequent phases will be considered as a PUD. Staff has received a Master Plan indicating the comprehensive development. The most significant problem found with the site plan is the location of the proposed parking and setback areas which is prohibited in "MF-18" Districts. The applicant should submit a revised plan which corrects this and shows all dimensions between buildings, dimensions from the buildings to the property lines and a cross of the site or building elevations. This development is one of two of the remaining residential tracts in the Riverdale area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: This application was represented by the architect. A brief discussion was held relative to comments raised by the staff concerning parking in front yard area. It was noted that the ordinance does disallow parking as provided. A solution was offered by Mr. Dick Savage, the architect, the solution being the construction of either a berm or a brick wall along the street property line to provide for a visual separation between the parking and the arterial street. July 12, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued Both the staff and the Committee viewed this as an acceptable device to accommodate the parking in the front yard. However, since specifics were not available, the Committee suggested that Mr. Savage prepare some designs of general nature to be offered to the Commission on the 12th which could be utilized for purposes of making a commitment to one of the two design features. The Planning staff further noted that the variance request is supported in this instance by the unique shape of this tract, the location of the levy to the west and a very large street right-of-way on the east. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff reported that a revised plan was submitted, which placed a berm within the right-of-way. Engineering reported that this was acceptable if sufficient place is left for right-of-way dedication and if all of the utilities agree. The applicant reported that Riverdale requires berms that are to be maintained by the property owner. A motion was made and passed to approve this plan, subject to the above conditions. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.