Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4403-A Staff AnalysisItem OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATION JANUARY 21,1997 AGENDA Subject Action Required Submitted By Revocation of Kanis and 40rdinance Aldersgate Apartments PRD Resolution Long -Form (Z-4403) 1200- Approval 1600 Block Aldersgate Road Information Report Charles Nickerson SYNOPSIS This PRD is eleven years old with no extensions of the three year time limit. The proposal was to develop 350 apartments on 17.3 acres. The developer died and the several owners of land included did not pursue the matter. FISCAL IMPACT None in as much there will be no development as the result of this action. RECOMMENDATION That the PRD be revoked in its entirety and that the land involved be restored to its previous classification of MF -24 and 0-3. The Planning Commission recommended the revocation by vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The staff recommends revocation. The Land Use Plan indicates Office use. CITIZEN There were no objectors from the four owners of the tract however PARTICIPATION two of them may file for office zoning later. No neighborhood notice of review involved. BACKGROUND This long narrow parcel of land has been involved in numerous applications over a number of years. Two small portions of the tract have been rezoned 0-3, one of those at the corner of Kanis Road. That lot has a new office building in place. The neighborhood zoning changed recently when the Baptist Hospital System acquired all of the land to the east over to Jr. Deputy Road. The site has been approved for MF zoning as well as partial office. Boundary Street improvements, drainage problems and access deters development. FILE NO.: Z -4403-A NAME: KANIS AND ALDERSGATE APARTMENTS LONG -FORM PRD (REVOCATION) LOCATION: 1200-1600 Block Aldersgate Road west side of street CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS: ORIGINAL APPLICANT: B. J. Latting, Eagle Bank J. Roberts Co. by Joel Komer Thomas Mahoney 5050 Quorum Dr. Tavakol Ronagai Dallas, TX 75240 The Wilson Company AREA: 17.3 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PRD ORIGINAL ZONING: R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: #11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 BACKGROUND: This PRD received preliminary approval from the Planning Commission on May 14, 1985 involving some 17.3 acres. The was little or no objection. The Board of Directors approved the PRD on June 4, 1985 by Ordinance No. 14,894. No action followed to construct the improvements or file a plan and plat. In June of 1986 an amending application was filed that changed the plan and reduced the site to 12± acres. The applicant worked with staff and commission through August and then withdrew the request. The action here is to revoke the original ordinance 14,894 creating the PRD and then restore the R-2 zoning that previously existed. STAFF UPDATE: On October 1, 1996, Staff mailed certified notice to the four current land owners these were: Thomas E. Mahoney Bob Wilson, The Wilson Company Tavakil Ronagai B. J. and Janice Latting FILE NO.: Z -4403-A Cont. The return receipts were signed and returned to the case file. The only owner contacts came from Mr. Wilson who said he would file after this action to gain 0-3 zoning, also, Mr. Mahoney expressed an interest in rezoning to 0-3. The Land Use Plan indicates office along the I-430 corridor at Kanis Road. Therefore such applications may be favorably received. They are not a part of this action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the PRD titled "J. Roberts Company Long -Form PRD" be revoked and the R-2 zoning prior to this PUD be restored. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 5, 1996) Richard Wood, of the Staff, produced a brief comment on this item stating there were a number of owners currently on this project. One of which had removed his parcel of land from the application for the PRD. That property was returned to an 0-3 Office classification, thereby effectively terminating or invalidating the balance of the PRD. Wood stated that it was appropriate to take this item through for revocation in as much as the owners have not indicated a desire to pursue a multifamily format. After a brief discussion, it was determined that a motion was in order to recommend to the City Board of Directors that this item be revoked and that the previous classification be restored. A motion of that effect was passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. 6 August 12, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS I tem No. G NAME: LOCATION: nRVRT.OPER Joel Komer, President J. Roberts Co. 5050 Quorum Drive Suite 635 Dallas, TX 75240 Phone: 214-458-1756 AREA: 12 acres ZONING: PRD J. Roberts Co. "Long -Form PRD" (Z -4403-A) I-430 and Kanis - West Side of Aldersgate RNaTNRRR Summerlin and Associates, Inc. 1609 Broadway Little Rock, AR Phone: 376-1323 NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0 PROPOSED USES: Apartments A. Developmental Concept (1) To provide housing facilities to serve the needs of the increasing employment base being created by extensive commercial and retail development in the immediate vicinity; and to address the apparent need for upgrading the area. (2) To help the City begin upgrading and redeveloping this area by introducing a new and affordable quality community. B. Development Proposal (1) The construction of 16, three-story buildings (in two phases) on 11.68 acres. i August 12, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. G - Continued (2) Quantitative Data (a) Phase I Unit Area Count Al 489 square feet 48 A3 628 square feet 72 B1 774 square feet 24 B2 918 square feet 48 Total - 192 Units Parking - 308 (b) Phase II Unit Area Count Al 489 square feet 24 A3 628 square feet 72 B1 774 square feet 24 B2 918 square feet 60 Total - 180 Units Parking - 271 cars (3) Miscellaneous Data (a) Recreation Building ........ 3,200 (b) Net Land Area .............. 5,885 11.68 Acres Total Building Coverage ....90,512 17.79% Paving Coverage ...........188,175 36.98% Outdoor Recreation Area ... 54,350 10.685 Landscape Open Space ..... 175,848 34.56% (4) Developmental Time Frame Construction should begin within six to nine months and be completed within 24 to 30 months. F� August 12, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. G - Continued C. Analysis Staff feels that the major issue is density. The proposed density is 31.8 units per acre. The applicant has used a higher density that usually gains our support infill and central city sites. The maximum density that staff will support is 18 to 24 units per acre in a well designed livable environment. It should be noted that sewer service to the site was an issue the last two applications and this user proposes to increase the impact. It has been noted that all buildings along the interstate are too close to the property line and Building B-2 is located in what is the detention area agreed upon on the previous proposal that was approved on this site. Engineering requests that use of this as a detention area be retained, and that the area be increased for stormwater and erosion control. The entrances could be increased by one. Please submit building elevations, floor plans, and show the cut line for the cross section. D. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to reduction in density commensurate with the approved land use plan and resolving drainage concerns. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86) This application was discussed at length with primary consideration given to drainage and density. The proposal offered deals with detention in a fashion that Public Works does not view as meeting the silt and sedimentation control needs previously identified. The appropriate location for such control is the southwest corner of the site. The developer will look at alternative approaches and report on the 8th. He will review his position on density relative to the elimination of units and/or buildings and reduction from 31 plus units per acre to the neighborhood of 24 units per acre. Water Works reports that on-site fire protection systems should be shown on the plan. Also, that $150 per acre charge applies. Wastewater reports that a main extension is required to serve the site and a capacity contribution fee is required. August 12, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. G - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86) The applicant advised staff prior to the meeting by letter that a deferral is needed in order to restructure the application due to the original developer dropping out of the issue. The owner of the land and a new developer will refile for the August 12, 1986, meeting. A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITEE REVIEW: (7-31-86) The Engineer for the project presented a new plan for a new applicant that reduced the density to 25.6 units per acre and 288 units. He also informed the Committee that a portion of the property had been lost due to that owners unwillingness to participate. Deferral of this proposal was discussed, since it had not been submitted for staff review prior to this meeting. WATER WORKS - On-site fire protection plus acreage charge. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent. July 8, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 NAME: LOCATION: DEVE MPER Joel Komer, President J. Roberts Co. 5050 Quorum Drive Suite 635 Dallas, TX 75240 Phone: 214-458-1756 AREA: 12 acres ZONING: PRD J. Roberts Co. "Long -Form PRD" (Z -4403-A) I-430 and Kanis - West Side of Aldersgate RWaTMRRR Summerlin and Associates, Inc. 1609 Broadway Little Rock, AR Phone: 376-1323 NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0 PROPOSED USES: Apartments A. Developmental Concept (1) To provide housing facilities to serve the needs of the increasing employment base being created by extensive commercial and retail development in the immediate vicinity; and to address the apparent need for upgrading the area. (2) To help the City begin upgrading and redeveloping this area by introducing a new and affordable quality community. B. Development Proposal (1) The construction of 16, three-story buildings (in two phases) on 11.68 acres. July 8, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued (2) Quantitative Data (a) Phase I Unit Area Count Al 489 square feet 48 A3 628 square feet 72 B1 774 square feet 24 B2 918 square feet 48 Total - 192 Units Parking - 308 (b) Phase II Unit Area Count Al 489 square feet 24 A3 628 square feet 72 B1 774 square feet 24 B2 918 square feet 60 Total - 180 Units Parking - 271 cars (3) Miscellaneous Data (a) Recreation Building ........ 3,200 (b) Net Land Area .............. 5,885 11.68 Acres Total Building Coverage ....90,512 17.79% Paving Coverage ...........188,175 36.98% Outdoor Recreation Area ... 54,350 10.685 Landscape Open Space ..... 175,848 34.56% (4) Developmental Time Frame Construction should begin within six to nine months and be completed within 24 to 30 months. July 8, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued C. Analysis Staff feels that the major issue is density. The proposed density is 31.8 units per acre. The applicant has'used a higher density that usually gains our support infill and central city sites. The maximum density that staff will support is 18 to 24 units per acre in a well designed livable environment. It should be noted that sewer service to the site was an issue the last two applications and this user proposes to increase the impact. It has been noted that all buildings along the interstate are too close to the property line and Building B-2 is located in what is the detention area agreed upon on the previous proposal that was approved on this site. Engineering requests that use of this as a detention area be retained, and that the area be increased for stormwater and erosion control. The entrances could be increased by one. Please submit building elevations, floor plans, and show the cut line for the cross section. D. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to reduction in density commensurate with the approved land use plan and resolving drainage concerns. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (6-26-86) This application was discussed at length with primary consideration given to drainage and density. The proposal offered deals with detention in a fashion that Public Works does not view as meeting the silt and sedimentation control needs previously identified. The appropriate location for such control is the southwest corner of the site. The developer will look at alternative approaches and report on the 8th. He will review his position on density relative to the elimination of units and/or buildings and reduction from 31 plus units per acre to the neighborhood of 24 units per acre. Water Works reports that on-site fire protection systems should be shown on the plan. Also, that $150 per acre charge applies. Wastewater reports that a main extension is required to serve the site and a capacity contribution fee is required. July 8, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-8-86) The applicant advised staff prior to the meeting by letter that a deferral is needed in order to restructure the application due to the original developer dropping out of the issue. The owner of the land and a new developer will refile for the August 12, 1986, meeting. A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position. December 5, 1996 TEM NO.: 6B FILE NO.: Z -4403 - NAME: J. ROBERTS CO. LONG -FORM PRD (REVOCATION) LOCATION: 1200-1600 Block Aldersgate Road west side of street CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS: ORIGINAL APPLICANT: B. J. Latting, Eagle Bank Thomas Mahoney Tavakol Ronagai The Wilson Company J. Roberts Co. by Joel Komer 5050 Quorum Dr. Dallas, TX 75240 AREA: 17.3 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PRD ORIGINAL ZONING: R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: #11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 BACKGROUND: This PRD received preliminary approval from the Planning Commission on May 14, 1985 involving some 17.3 acres. The was little or no objection. The Board of Directors approved the PRD on June 4, 1985 by Ordinance No. 14,894. No action followed to construct the improvements or file a plan and plat. In June of 1986 an amending application was filed that changed the plan and reduced the site to 12± acres. The applicant worked with staff and commission through August and then withdrew the request. The action here is to revoke the original ordinance 14,894 creating the PRD and then restore the R-2 zoning that previously existed. STAFF UPDATE On October 1, 1996, Staff mailed certified notice to the four current land owners these were: Thomas E. Mahoney Bob Wilson, The Wilson Company Tavakil Ronagai B. J. and Janice Latting December 5, 1996 ITEM NO.: 6B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4403-A The return receipts were signed and returned to the case file. The only owner contacts came from Mr. Wilson who said he would file after this action to gain 0-3 zoning, also, Mr. Mahoney expressed an interest in rezoning to 0-3. The Land Use Plan indicates office along the I-430 corridor at Ranis Road. Therefore such applications may be favorably received. They are not a part of this action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the PRD titled "Hunters Ridge Long -Form PRD" be revoked and the R-2 zoning prior to this PUD be restored. PA December 5, 1996 ITEM NO.: 6B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4403-A The return receipts were signed and returned to the case file. The only owner contacts came from Mr. Wilson who said he would file after this action to gain 0-3 zoning, also, Mr. Mahoney expressed an interest in rezoning to 0-3. The Land Use Plan indicates office along the I-430 corridor at Kanis Road. Therefore such applications may be favorably received. They are not a part of this action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the PRD titled "J. Roberts Company Long -Form PRD• be revoked and the R-2 zoning prior to this PUD be restored. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 5, 1996) Richard Wood, of the Staff, produced a brief comment on this item stating there were a number of owners currently on this project. One of which had removed his parcel of land from the application for the PRD. That property was returned to an 0-3 Office classification, thereby effectively terminating or invalidating the balance of the PRD. Wood stated that it was appropriate to take this item through for revocation in as much as the owners have not indicated a desire to pursue a multifamily format. After a brief discussion, it was determined that a motion was in order to recommend to the City Board of Directors that this item be revoked and that the previous classification be restored. A motion of that effect was passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. P,