Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4987-A Staff AnalysisMay 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z -4987-A NAME: Canal Pointe - Revised PCD LOCATION: East of Riverfront Drive at Riverdale Road along the levee. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: H. Bradley Walker White-Daters & Associates, Inc. 300 Riverside Building 401 Victory Street 2228 Cottondale Lane Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72202 374-1666 666-4242 AREA: 6.8 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 38 FT. NEW STREET: 0/public ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USES: Single family residence PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 CENSUS TRACT: 15 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: This application is submitted for purposes of reducing the residential density in this section of the PCD from the previously approved site plan. It is the intention of this proposal to offer single family lots, fee simple ownership. There are to be no public streets dedicated within this section of the PCD. The improvements will be maintained through the Riverdale Harbour Municipal Property Owners Improvement District. This amendment is one of several which follow t'he initial construction of the harbor area. I May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 12 (Continued) A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This applicant proposes a revision of the current planned commercial district providing for the Riverdale Harbour development. The proposal consists of 38 single family detached units on a private street system entering from Riverfront Drive. The only exceptions from ordinance standard would be those included in the design of Canal Pointe, the primary street servicing the area. The street will be of standard width and pavement. However, there is no right-of-way beyond the curb line. The building setback lines will be ten feet from the curb. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site consists of a generally flat parcel of land with a scattering of mature trees. Along the northeasterly boundary adjacent to the river, a levee crosses nine of the lots. To the north of the project site is the Riverdale Harbour and lock area. To the south is a project developed by the Bailey Corporation identified as River Bend. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Provide turnarounds at the ends of the private roads. The median cut on Canal Pointe intersection with Riverfront Drive does not currently exist. This should be verified through previous approval or receive such through the Traffic Engineering section. Conform to the Detention and Excavation Ordinances. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The only issue of concern in this category is the design. The Planning Staff is somewhat concerned that the structures within this project, along Canal Pointe especially, will be located 47 feet from foundation line to foundation line if, in fact, the buildings are constructed to the minimum alignment. Inasmuch as the developer has not submitted specific footprint or typicals of the various building types, the assumption is that the areas delineated by setback lines will be the foundation lines. Although the drawing presented is not represented as a preliminary plat, it does May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 12 (Continued) indicate an area occupied by an existing levee with easement and/or ownership by a levee district. This should be clearly delineated on the drawing inasmuch as it does impact nine of the lots. E. ANALYSIS: Although this presentation is a planned unit development application, the Staff feels that there are a number of areas that the petitioner and his engineer should conform to, or design as close as possible. These areas are: The buildable area of each of the several lots should be clarified. 2. Location of the toe of the levee on both sides. 3. Structure elevations, or a section through the site, should be presented to offer relationships of lots, streets and buildings. 4. A section through the entire site is not a requirement but would be helpful, especially with respect to the potential for filling of this site. 5. A preliminary grading plan. 6. Center line data on curves. 7. A public service and access easement should be placed upon the entry street with a 45 foot minimum right-of-way. 8. Permanent maintenance provisions should be set forth for the interior street system and set out in a Bill of Assurance. 9. A maintenance contract should be negotiated with the Water Works for the location of the appropriate water line and fire hydrant. 10. The design of the entry street at Riverfront Drive should include a driveway apron as opposed to a conventional street intersection. 11. Attach a fully drafted preliminary plat in conformance with the ordinance requirements. ORDINANCE NO. 15,691 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TITLED RIVERDALE HARBOUR - CANAL POINTE (Z -4987-A) IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the zone classification of the following described property be changed from Planned Commercial Development - mixed use development to Planned Commercial Development - single-family small lot development. A tract of land located in the SW 1/4, SW 1/4, Section 28; SE 1/4, SE 1/4, Section 29; NE 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 32; and NW 1/4, NW 1/4, Section 33; T -2-N, R -12-W, Pulaski County, Arkansas more particularly described as: Beginning at the NE corner of Tract D -2A, Riverdale Addition, Little Rock, Arkansas; thence South 70°14'00" west along the north line of said Tract D -2A, 495.76 feet to a point; thence North 17°38146" west, 566.54 feet to a point on the easterly line of Tract A, Riverdale Harbour, Phase I, said Riverdale Addition; thence along said easterly line, the following bearings and distances: north 71000'02" west, 25.0 feet; north 18059'58" east, 435.00 feet; north 70014'00" east, 184.74 feet to the easternmost corner of said Tract A, said corner lying on the ordinary High Water line of the Arkansas River; thence southerly along said ordinary High Water line, the following bearings and distances: south 17°57120" east, 522.51 feet and south 27025'40" east, 402.31 feet to the point of beginning, containing 8.4788 acres, more or less. SECTION 2. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as recommended by the Little Rock Planning Commission. SECTION 3. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for Riverdale Harbour - Canal Pointe (Short - form Planned Commercial Development) is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval within the time specified by Article VII, Section 36 of the Code of Ordinances. SECTION 4. That the map referred in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of -Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and it is hereby amended to the extent and -in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change provided for in Section 1 hereof. SECTION 5. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force upon final approval of the plan. PASSED: __June _6,_ 19"9 ATTEST: APPROVED: Jane Czech Floyd Go Villines, III City Clerk Mayor 1. Meeting Date: May 16, 1989 2. Case No.: Z -4987-A 3. Request: Riverdale Harbour - Canal Pointe ................. 4. Location: East of Riverfront Drive at Riverdale Road, along the levee. 5. Owner/Applicant: H. Bradley Walker/White-Daters and ............................... Associates, Inc. 6. Existing Status: Planned Commercial Development - mixed use development. 7. Proposed Use: Planned Commercial Development - single family small lot development. 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to the applicant constructing a "crash gate" that would be manned, monitored or accessible 24 hours a day. 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval of the plan and plat subject to the gate being "crashable,, manned, monitored or accessible 24 hours a day" with the reservation that should em,,-rgency vehicles have difficulty, the City can revoke the gate authorization. * All issues have been resolved. 10. Recommendation Forwarded With: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. 11. Objectors: None. FILE NO.: Z -4987-A NAME: Canal Pointe - Revised PCD LOCATION: East of Riverfront Drive at Riverdale Road along the levee. DEVELOPER: H. Bradley Walker 300 Riverside Building 2228 Cottondale Lane Little Rock, AR 72202 666-4242 AREA: 6.8 acres FT. NEW STREET: 0/public ENGINEER: White-Daters & Associates, Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 NUMBER OF LOTS: 38 ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USES: Single family residence PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 CENSUS TRACT: 15 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: This application is submitted for purposes of reducing the residential density in this section of the PCD from the previously approved site plan. It is the intention of this proposal to offer single family lots, fee simple ownership. There are to be no public streets dedicated within this section of the PCD. The improvements will be maintained through the Riverdale Harbour Municipal Property Owners Improvement District. This amendment is one of several which follow the initial construction of the harbor area. (Continued) A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This applicant proposes a revision of the current planned commercial district providing for the Riverdale Harbour development. The proposal consists of 38 single family detached units on a private street system entering from Riverfront Drive. The only exceptions from ordinance standard would be those included in the design of Canal Pointe, the primary street servicing the area. The street will be of standard width and pavement. However, there is no right-of-way beyond the curb line. The building setback lines will be ten feet from the curb. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site consists of a generally flat parcel of land with a scattering of mature trees. Along the northeasterly boundary adjacent to the river, a levee crosses nine of the lots. To the north of the project site is the Riverdale Harbour and lock area. To the south is a project developed by the Bailey Corporation identified as River Bend. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Provide turnarounds at the ends of the private roads. The median cut on Canal Pointe intersection with Riverfront Drive does not currently exist. This should be verified through previous approval or receive such through the Traffic Engineering section. Conform to the Detention and Excavation Ordinances. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The only issue of concern in this category is the design. The Planning Staff is somewhat concerned that the structures within this project, along Canal Pointe especially, will be located 47 feet from foundation line to foundation line if, in fact, the buildings are constructed to the minimum alignment. Inasmuch as the developer has not submitted specific footprint or typicals of the various building types, the assumption is that the areas delineated by setback lines will be the foundation lines. Although the drawing presented is not represented as a preliminary plat, it does Md (Continued) indicate an area occupied by an existing levee with easement and/or ownership by a levee district. This should be clearly delineated on the drawing inasmuch as it does impact nine of the lots. E. ANALYSIS: Although this presentation is a planned unit development application, the Staff feels that there are a number of areas that the petitioner and his engineer should conform to, or design as close as possible. These areas are: 1. The buildable area of each of the several lots should be clarified. 2. Location of the toe of the levee on both sides. 3. Structure elevations, or a section through the site, should be presented to offer relationships of lots, streets and buildings. 4. A section through the entire site is not a requirement but would be helpful, especially with respect to the potential for filling of this site. 5. A preliminary grading plan. 6. Center line data on curves. 7. A public service and access easement should be placed upon the entry street with a 45 foot minimum right-of-way. 8. Permanent maintenance provisions should be set forth for the interior street system and set out in a Bill of Assurance. 9. A maintenance contract should be negotiated with the Water Works for the location of the appropriate water line and fire hydrant. 10. The design of the entry street at Riverfront Drive should include a driveway apron as opposed to a conventional street intersection. 11. Attach a fully drafted preliminary plat in conformance with the ordinance requirements. (Continued) 12. Provide minimum of 24 feet on stub streets for service by large vehicles such as fire and sanitation. The Planning Staff view of the proposal is that it is entirely acceptable to the location, given the types of development in the immediate vicinity to the south and north. The access to the project is appropriate, although the design of the gatehouse, the islands and potential for a gate cause concern. The City's policy in regard to gates across the access to residential areas is that they not be allowed. The gatehouse and monitored entry is not a concern. The Staff observed in its review of the drawing that there is a Tract B lying on the river side of the levee that has not been identified as to usage. This should be indicated on the drawing. All of the foregoing indicates to Staff that this filing was premature and that the applicant should defer the matter until a future Planning Commission meeting at which time the many issues pointed out can be resolved, or the information provided. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Staff recommends the deferral of this application until the June 27, 1989 Subdivision Hearing. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 4, 1989) The applicant, Mr. Brad Walker, was in attendance as was his engineer, Mr. Joe White. The Planning Staff offered its recommendation and clarified several points after questioning by Mr. Walker. Mr. Walker offered a general overview of the proposal which was that this project is a reproduction of a development that was observed in Florida which functions quite well with the same type of housing, lot siting and street construction. He indicated with the type of development proposed, the larger types of streets, cul-de-sacs and such are inappropriate. Mr. Joe White indicated that each of the houses would be provided with an auto court in one corner of the property in addition to a garage. This would afford parking and maneuvering space for persons entering the narrow streets. (Continued) It was further pointed out that this will be a secured project with a gatehouse and, perhaps, a full time person on duty. Staff injected at this point a comment concerning the City policy against gates entering private streets. Mr. Walker indicated that they will press for the gate inasmuch as this will not be an untended relationship. Mr. Walker and Mr. White offered commentary on the development of the site and the relationship of this parcel to the harbor which has been approved for construction. They indicated that a significant amount of fill material will be moved from the harbor area to this site and, in the process, terracing this subdivision in three levels so as to provide the third, or upper level, at grade with the levee. Staff then requested that the applicant provide sections through the site which could perhaps indicate the structural elevations in typical, or perhaps as separate drawings. The applicant indicated that this could be provided by his architect and by the engineer, and it could be provided before the public hearing. Staff and Committee felt that this would be good to have for the Commission to view in order to grasp the relationship between these structures, the lots, the streets and the river. Staff continued its view that there are some deficiencies in the proposal, but that Staff is not opposed to innovative design approach. Mr. Walker indicated that the Staff concern about the maintenance or identity of the several tracts that are outside the levee, or lot area, would be addressed by the maintenance provisions in the Bill of Assurance and the legal instruments involved in the formation of the improvement district that overlays the harbor and the entire PUD project. The Committee then requested of Mr. White and Mr. Walker's architect the submission of the two plan elements, one being elevations in typical of the structures and a section through the site indicating the changes in elevations to be accomplished. Mr. White was given a time deadline of Tuesday, 5:00 p.m., May 9th, and the architect's plan would be permitted in by Thursday, 5:00 p.m, May 11th.- There 1th.There being no further discussion, this item was referred to the full Commission for resolution. I May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 12 (Continued) ............ ................... .. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 16, 1989) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Staff stated that all the issues had been resolved except for the placement of a gate across the private drive. The Staff recommended approval, subject to the access gate being deleted. The applicant, Mr. Brad Walker, stated that the gate was of primary importance to the marketing of the project and that the property to the north had an access gate. The Staff argued that gates could be a hazard or impediment to public service vehicles and any gate constructed should be designed for emergency vehicle penetration. The applicant agreed to comply with the crash gate concept. The Commission asked the applicant if he would agree to have the gate manned, monitored or accessible 24 hours a day. The applicant stated that he would. The Commission further specified that if emergency vehicles have difficulty, the City can revoke the gate authorization. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent to approve the application provided the gate was "crashable, and manned, monitored or accessible 24 hours a day." ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TITLED RIVERDALE HARBOUR - CANAL POINTE (Z -4987-A) IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the zone classification of the following described property be changed from Planned Commercial Development - mixed use development to Planned Commercial Development - single-family small lot development. A tract of land located in the SW 1/4, SW 1/4, Section 28; SE 1/4, SE 1/4, Section 29; NE 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 32; and NW 1/4, NW 1/4, Section 33; T -2-N, R -12-W, Pulaski County, Arkansas more particularly described as: Beginning at the NE corner of Tract D -2A, Riverdale Addition, Little Rock, Arkansas; thence South 70014100" west along the north line of said Tract D -2A, 495.76 feet to a point; thence North 17038'46" west, 566.54 feet to a point on the easterly line of Tract A, Riverdale Harbour, Phase I, said Riverdale Addition; thence along said easterly line, the following bearings and distances: north 71000102" west, 25.0 feet; north 181,59158" east, 435.00 feet; north 70°14'00" east, 184.74 feet to the easternmost corner of said Tract A, said corner lying on the ordinary High Water line of the Arkansas River; thence southerly along said ordinary High Water line, the following bearings and distances: south 17057'20" east, 522.51 feet and south 27025'40" east, 402.31 feet to the point of beginning, containing 8.4788 acres, more or less. SECTION 2. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as recommended by the Little Rock Plannirg Commission. S CTION 3. That the change in zoning classification contem lated for Riverdale Harbour - Canal Pointe (Short - form P°anned Commercial Development) is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval within the time specified by Article. VII, Section 36 of the Code of Ordinances. SECTION 4. That the map referred in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and it is hereby amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change provided for in Section 1 hereof. SECTION 5. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force upon final approval of the plan. PASSED: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor Riverdale Harbor - Continued private. There were no problems with the traffic and no floodplain issues. He felt that the Corps of Engineers would review any issues regarding the lock. Mr. Gene Lewis and Mr. Larry Jacimore expressed concerns Of existing property owners in Riverdale that were relative to the physical and financial impacts on the Levee District and the nature of the ownership of the lot. Mr. Jacimore felt that it would be helpful if. the Improvement District commissioners would imform the property owners in the district of any changes. A motion for approval was made and passed, subject to Fire Department approval of the revised plan. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 1 abstention. Riverdale Harbor - Continued system since the two access roads would be dedicated to the City. The applicant explained that the commercial use would be 70' from the nearest Bailey condominium. A 42" sewer main runs through the harbor and clubhouse. There .was also some discussion of the proposed commercial uses. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff stated its recommendation as approval, subject to resolution of the engineering issues. Mr. Brad Walker, developer, gave an overview of the project and presented a revised plan indicating changes in the intersections with Riverfront Drive. In responding to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Walker explained that a construction bond would be provided at building permit time for the marina and lock. The Riverdale Levee Improvement District would have authority over the locks and floodgate placed in the easement. Any cost incurred would be assessed the marina property through Special Improvement Districts. He stated that no burden would be placed on other property owners in Riverdale. The total impact would be assessed against this project and anything within the easement would need the consent of the District Commissioner. Staff warned the applicant that any future conversions of retail uses to restaurant uses may violate oVdinance requirements. Mr. Walker agreed to abide by the requirements if changes were made. Mr. Mike Batie of the Engineering Department explained to the Commission that the revisions made to the plan were acceptable to the City Engineers. He stated that the original concern was with the center drive and the stacking distance, but the issues had been resolved. He also explained that he originally had concerns about the internal street system if they were to be public, but the applicant informed him that they would be Riverdale Harbor - Continued 5. Dedication of internal streets to the City. 6a To close and/or relocate Riverdale Road in the future. 7. Use of natural berms to shelter the surface parking. 8. Development Data: (see attached sheet). C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design 1. :Specify phases on a site plan. 2. - Give more information on the relationship of the commercial area to abutting condominiums. 3. Submit traffic study based on phasing and final buildout. D. Engineering Comments 1. All entrances have to be redesigned. 2. Median breaks need to be studied in accordance with the Master Grading Plan. 3. Review design of internal intersections. E. Staff Recommendation Reserved until issues addressed. F. Subdivision Committee Review Engineering explained that the requested study related to access points and turning. They requested realignment and rearrangement of parking on the north end. Mike Batie, Assistant City Engineer, stated a need for further review of the proposed circulation Name: Riverdale Harbor "Long -Form" PCD (Z-4987) Location: North of Riverfront Drive between Turtle Creek and River Bend Develo2er/Architect: Walker Real Estate Polk/Stanley and Associates Area: 40 acres Zoning: "0-2" (existing) PCD (proposed PROPOSED USED: Mixed Use Development STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to resolution of the engineering issues. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant submitted a revised -plan reflecting the agreement with Engineering on intersections. Two persons represented some concerns of property owners in the Riverdale area. The concerns expressed involved questions about the physical and financial impact on the Levee District and the eventual ownership of the lot. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 1 abstention (Bill Rector). The vote was conditioned upon Fire Department approval of the revised plan. NAME: Riverdale Harbor Development "Long -Form" (Z-4987) LOCATION: North of Riverfront Drive between Turtle Creek and River Bend DEVELOPER/AGENT: ARCHITECT: Walker Real Estate Joe Stanley, Tommy Polk Riverdale Harbor Partnership Polk/Stanley & Associates 2228 Cottondale Lane, Suite 300 700 South Schiller Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 666-4242 Phone: 378-0878 AREAS: 40 acres NO. OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "0-2" (Office) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use Development A. Proposal/Request 1. To develop a 40 acre mixed use development comprised of a marina, multifamily neighborhood, commercial, and office uses focused on the recreational uses of the scenic Arkansas River. 2. To develop a six acre marina as the central focus of the development. 3. The blending of service and commercial retails into a speciality center by the riverfront/marina and small store configuration. 4. To develop three principal access points from Riverfront Drive in anticipation of the festival draw the lock canal will interject into the project. March 8, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 NAME: LOCATION: Riverdale Harbor Development "Long -Form" (Z-4987) North of Riverfront Drive between Turtle Creek and River Bend DEVELOPER/AGENT: ARCHITECT: Walker Real Estate, Architect Joe Stanley, Tommy Polk Riverdale Harbor Partnership Polk/Stanley & Associates 2228 Cottondale Lane, Suite 300 700 South Schiller Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 666-4242 Phone: 378-0878 AREAS: 40 acres NO. OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "0-2" (Office) PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use Development A. Proposal/Request to To develop a 40 acre mixed use development comprised of a marina, multifamily neighborhood, commercial, and office uses focused on the recreational uses of the scenic Arkansas River. 2. To develop a six acre marina as the central focus of the development. 3. The blending of service and commercial retails into a speciality center by the riverfront/marina and small store configuration. 4. To develop three principal access points from Riverfront Drive in anticipation of the festival draw,the lock canal will interject into the project. March 8, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued 5. Dedication of internal streets to the City. 6. To close and/or relocate Riverdale Road in the future. 7. Use of natural berms to shelter the surface parking. 8. Development Data: (see attached sheet). C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design 1. Specify phases on a site plan. 2. Give more information on the relationship of the commercial area to abutting condominiums. 3. Submit traffic study based on phasing and final buildout. D. Engineering Comments 1. All entrances have to be redesigned. 2. Median breaks need to be studied in accordance with the Master Grading Plan. 3. Review design of internal intersections. E. Staff Recommendation Reserved until issues addressed. F. Subdivision Committee Review Engineering explained that the requested study related to access points and turning. They requested realignment and rearrangement of parking on the north end. Mike Batie, Assistant City Engineer, stated a need for further review of the proposed circulation March 8, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued system since the two access roads would be dedicated to the City. The applicant explained that the commercial use would be 70' from the nearest Bailey condominium. A 42" sewer main runs through the harbor and clubhouse. There was also some discussion of the proposed commercial uses. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff stated its recommendation as approval, subject to resolution of the engineering issues. Mr. Brad Walker, developer, gave an overview of the project and presented a revised plan indicating changes in the intersections with Riverfront Drive. In responding to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Walker explained that a construction bond would be provided at building permit time for the marina and lock. The Riverdale Levee Improvement District would have authority over the locks and floodgate placed in the easement. Any cost incurred would be assessed the marina property through Special Improvement Districts. He stated that no burden would be placed on other property owners in Riverdale. The total impact would be assessed against this project and anything within the easement would need the consent of the District Commissioner. Staff warned the applicant that any future conversions of retail uses to restaurant uses may violate ordinance requirements. Mr. Walker agreed to abide by the requirements if changes were made. Mr. Mike Batie of the Engineering Department explained to the Commission that the revisions made to the plan were acceptable to the City Engineers. He stated that the original concern was with the center drive and the stacking distance, but the issues had been resolved. He also explained that he originally had concerns about the internal street system if they were to be public, but the applicant informed him that they would be March 8, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued private. There were no problems with the traffic and no floodplain issues. He felt that the Corps of Engineers would review any issues regarding the lock. Mr. Gene Lewis and Mr. Larry Jacimore expressed concerns of existing property owners in Riverdale that were relative to the physical and financial impacts on the Levee District and the nature of the ownership of the lot. Mr. Jacimore felt that it would be helpful if the Improvement District Commissioners would imform the property owners in the district of any changes. A motion for approval was made and passed, subject to Fire Department approval of the revised plan. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 1 abstention. May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 12 (Continued) 12. Provide minimum of 24 feet on stub streets for service by large vehicles such as fire and sanitation. The Planning Staff view of the proposal is that it is entirely acceptable to the location, given the types of development in the immediate vicinity to the south and north. The access to the project is appropriate, although the design of the gatehouse, the islands and potential for a gate cause concern. The City's policy in regard to gates across the access to residential areas is that they not be allowed. The gatehouse and monitored entry is not a concern. The Staff observed in its review of the drawing that there is a Tract B lying on the river side of the levee that has not been identified as to usage. This should be indicated on the drawing. All of the foregoing indicates to Staff that this filing was premature and that the applicant should defer the matter until a future Planning Commission meeting at which time the many issues pointed out can be resolved, or the information provided. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Staff recommends the deferral of this application until the June 27, 1989 Subdivision Hearing. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 4, 1989) The applicant, Mr. Brad Walker, was in attendance as was his engineer, Mr. Joe White. The Planning Staff offered its recommendation and clarified several points after questioning by Mr. -Walker. Mr. Walker offered a general overview of the proposal which was that this project is a reproduction of a development that was observed in Florida which functions quite well with the same type.of housing, lot siting and street construction. He indicated with the type of development proposed, the larger types of streets, cul-de-sacs and such are inappropriate. Mr. Joe White indicated that each of the houses would be provided with an auto court in one corner of the property in addition to a garage. This would afford parking and maneuvering space for persons entering the narrow streets. May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 12 (Continued) It was further pointed out that this will be a secured project with a gatehouse and, perhaps, a full time person on duty. Staff injected at this point a comment concerning the City policy against gates entering private streets. Mr. Walker indicated that they will press for the gate inasmuch as this will not be an untended relationship. Mr. Walker and Mr. White offered commentary on the development of the site and the relationship of this parcel to the harbor which has been approved for construction. They indicated that a significant amount of fill material will be moved from the harbor area to this site and, in the process, terracing this .3ubdi'vision in three levels so as to provide the third, or upper level, at grade with the levee. Staff then requested that the applicant provide sections through the site which could )erhaps indicate the structural elevations in typical, or periaps as separate drawings. The applicant indicated that this could be provided by his architect and by the engineer, and it could be provided before the public hearing. Staff and Committee felt that this would be good to have for the Commission to view in order to grasp the relationship between these structures, the lots, the streets and the river. Staff continued its view that there are some deficiencies in the proposal, but that Staff is not opposed to innovative design approach. Mr. Walker indicated that the Staff concern about the maintenance or identity of the several tracts that are outside the levee, or lot area, would be addressed by the maintenance provisions in the Bill of Assurance and the legal instruments involved in the formation of the improvement district that overlays the harbor and the entire PUD project. The Committee then requested of Mr. White and Mr. Walker's architect the submission of the two plan elements, one being elevations in typical of the structures and a section through the site indicating the changes in elevations to be accomplished. Mr. White was given a time deadline of Tuesday, 5:00 p.m., May 9th, and the architect's plan would be permitted in by Thursday, 5:00 p.m, May 11th. There being no further discussion, this item was referred to the full Commission for resolution. May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 12 (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 16, 1989) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Staff stated that all the issues had been resolved except for the placement of a gate across the private -drive. The Staff recommended approval, subject to the access gate being deleted. The applicant, Mr. Brad Walker, stated that the gate was of primary importance to the marketing of the project and that the property to the north had an access gate. The Staff argued that gates could be a hazard or impediment to public service vehicles and any gate constructed should be designed for emergency vehicle penetration. The applicant agreed to comply with the crash gate concept. The Commission asked the applicant if he would agree to have the gate manned, monitored or accessible 24 hours a day. The applicant stated that he would. The Commission further specified that if emergency vehicles have difficulty, the City can revoke the gate authorization. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent to approve the application provided the gate was "crushable, and manned, monitored or accessible 24 hours a day."