Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0072-B Staff AnalysisAugust 28, 1979 40 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 NAME: Westbridge, Phase 2 LOCATION: Between the ends of Labette Manor Drive and Morris Manor Drive 1-1 10 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Apartment House James C. Summerlin Associates, Inc. Builders, Inc. 1609 Broadway P. O. Box 959 Little Rock, AR 72202 11. Little Rock, AR 72115 Phone: 376-1323 Phone: 758-2842 AREA: 8.03 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW STREET: 620 ZONING: 11MF-12" PROPOSED USES: Multifamily Residence (96 Units) PLANNING DISTRICT: 21 a CE14SUS TRACT: 24.01 VARIANCE REQUESTED: None. s • • August 28, 1979 Item No. 19 - Continued A. Existing Conditions The property has been cleared with scattered trees remaining. It is fairly level. Labette Manor Drive has been extended. It does not appear to be up to current City standards. All public services and utilities are available adjacent. B. Development Proposal Site preparation will be routine and as necessary for parking, drives and building sites. The proposed units will be in buildings of 8 and 16 units, both one bedroom and two. Density as shown equals 12 units per acre. However, deduction of street right-of-way would increase the density above that permitted in the "MF-12" District. The street as -built has not been reviewed for conformance to alignment standards or design speed (25 mph). Recreational facilities are adjacent on the north and could be intended to serve these units. No sidewalks are shown on Labette Manor Drive. The new ordinance would require them on both sides. Current standards also would require 40' undisturbed buffers along the west line and 200' of the east line with 6' opaque fences. Other side yards and building separations are governed by the Zoning Ordinance and building code. One driveway intersects -the street at a very acute angle. It should be more nearly perpendicular. Since Labette Manor Drive was built at private initiative as a private street without City review and connecting to public streets, a substantial problem has been created. It is difficult to accept it as a public street without far more detailed review. It is also difficult to provide for proper termination of public streets and acceptance of this segment as 'a private access drive. August 28, 1979 Item No. 19 - Continued C. Analysis The plat as submitted fails to address the Ordinance's design and legal requirements. D. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends deferral pending submittal of a plat which addresses all Ordinance requirements in detail. Subdivision Committee Recommendation: The Subdivision Committee recommends deferral as necessary. Planning Commission Action: The developer and his engineer were present. Shortly before the meeting a revised plat was submitted which appeared, upon brief inspection, to address most of the problems noted in Section B above. The developer expressed his desire to develop 96 units even through it is necessary to count street right-of-way to achieve that density. The staff recommended against such an action on grounds. of probable illegality. The Commission voted 6 ayes, 2 noes to approve the application subject to: 1. Resolution of all items covered in Paragraph B above. 2. The proposed street to remain private long enough to permit development of 96 units as proposed. r L August 28, 1979 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 NAME: Westbridge, Phase 2 LOCATION: Between the ends of Labette Manor Drive and Morris Manor Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Apartment House James C. Summerlin Associates, Inc. Builders, Inc. 1609 Broadway P. O. Box 959 Little Rock, AR 72202 N. Little Rock, AR 72115 Phone: 376-1323 Phone: 758-2842 - AREA: 8.03 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW STREET: 620 ZONING: "MF-12" PROPOSED USES: Multifamily Residence (96 Units) JIM PLANNING DISTRICT: 21 46 CENSUS TRACT: 24.01 VARIANCE REQUESTED: None. • August 28, 1979 46 Item No. 19 - Continued A. Existing Conditions The property has been cleared with scattered trees remaining. It is fairly level. Labette Manor Drive has been extended. It does not appear to be up to current City standards. All public services and utilities are available adjacent. B. Development Proposal Site preparation will be routine and as necessary for parking, drives and building sites. The proposed units will be in buildings of 8 and 16 units, both one bedroom and two. Density as shown equals 12 units per acre. However, deduction of street right-of-way would increase the density above that permitted in -the "MF-12" District. The street as -built has not been reviewed for conformance to alignment standards or design speed (25 mph). Recreational facilities, are adjacent on the north and could be intended to serve these units. No sidewalks are shown on Labette Manor Drive. The new ordinance would require them on both sides. Current standards also would require 40' undisturbed buffers along the west line and 200' of the east line with 6' opaque fences. Other side yards and building separations are governed by the Zoning Ordinance and building code. One driveway intersects the street at a very acute angle. It should be more nearly perpendicular. Since Labette Manor Drive was built at private initiative as a private street without City review and connecting to public streets, a substantial problem has been created. It is difficult to accept it as a public street without far more detailed review. It is also difficult to provide for proper termination of public streets and acceptance of this segment as 'a private access drive. C� � T . 0 August 28, 1979 Item No. 19 - Continued C. Analysis The plat as submitted fails to address the Ordinance's design and legal requirements. D. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends deferral pending submittal of a plat which addresses all Ordinance requirements in detail. Subdivision Committee Recommendation: The Subdivision Committee recommends deferral as necessary. Planning Commission Action: The developer and his engineer were present. Shortly before the meeting a revised plat was submitted which appeared, upon brief inspection, to address most of the problems noted in Section B above. The developer expressed his desire to develop 96 units even though it is necessary to count street right-of-way to achieve that density. The staff recommended against such an action on 40 grounds of probable illegality. The Commission voted 6 ayes, 2 noes to approve the application subject to: 1. Resolution of all items covered in Paragraph B above. 2. The proposed street to remain private long enough to permit development of 96 units as proposed. 0