Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4987-B Staff Analysis1. Meeting Date: July 21, 1992 2. Case No.: Z -4987-B 3. Request: To approve a planned residential district titled River Heights. 4. Location: NE corner of Canal Pointe at Riverfront Drive within the Riverdale development 5. Owner/Applicant: R.G.I. Realty Group, Inc. by H. Bradley Walker 6. Existing Status: Vacant property 7, Proposed Use: Develop the land as 15 single family home sites. 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the PRD as filed. 9. Plannina Commission Recommendation: Approval of the PRD as filed. 10. Conditions or Issues Remaining to be Resolved: None 11. Right -of -Way Issues: None 12. Recommendation Forwarded With: A vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 13. Obiectors: None 14. Neighborhood Plan: Heights/Hillcrest District 4 FILE NO.: Z -4987-B NAME: River Heights - PRD Short -form LOCATION: NE Corner of Canal Pointe at Riverfront Drive REQUEST: To reclassify from "PCD" to "PRD" DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• R.G.I. REALTY GROUP, INC. WHITE-DATERS, INC. H. BRADLEY WALKER 401 Victory Street 1500 Riverfront Drive Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72202 374-1666 666-4242 AREA: 3.39 Ac. NUMBER OF LOTS: 17 FT. NEW STREET: 0 public street ZONING:PCD PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 CENSUS TRACT: 15 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. PROPOSALIREQUEST: Single Family NAME: Heights - Hillcrest This application is a continuation of the Canal Pointe project, which lies immediately to the northeast. The project is proposed for single family homes on small lots, a private street system with a controlled access, shared open space and access to the canal facility and the marina. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The area on which this subdivision will be developed is cleared and part of the former golf course area. The land lies immediately adjacent to Riverfront Drive northbound lanes. The access will be from the existing street lying on the southeasterly side of the project affording a safe entry to and from the development. There are no site physical constraints to the design of this project. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Construct sidewalks along Riverfront Drive. 1 FILE NO.: Z -4987-B _(Continued) D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The plat as submitted requires some modification due to confusion about the several lines as to whether they are property lines, street pavement lines or some other easement line. The several items staff requires to be modified within the plat submittal are as follows: 1. Clarify the transition of property lines into street pavement lines at several points on the plat. 2. On River Heights cul-de-sac, specify whether the curb and easement line are one in the same or whether the lot line falls to the center of the street. 3. Place dimensions on Lot 17 to clarify building relationship. 4. Indicate River Height Road as access, utility and drainage easement. 5. Explain the curb alignment across the northwesterly corner of the plat intruding upon one of the lots. 6. Submit a narrative on the typical home to be constructed as to floor space, height and other physical characteristics. 7. Indicate relationship of plat to 100 year floodplain elevation. 8. Resubmit plat including the new design with fewer lots, and include the several items left off the plat at submittal. E. ANALYSIS• Staff review of this project is that it is entirely appropriate to the location and character of the neighborhood. The project proposal is a continuing effort of a quality project. There are no land use issues associated with the proposal. There are no significant design issues associated. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the planned residential district with the several modifications which we have indicated above, and the construction of sidewalk along Riverfront Drive as requested by Public Works. 2 FILE NO.: Z -4987-B (Continued) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 11, 1992) The application was represented by Mr. Joe White of White-Daters, Inc. Mr. White presented a modified preliminary plat for this proposal which reduced the total number of lots to fifteen. Mr. White addressed the several questions raised by staff as to easement lines, right-of-way lines etc. He pointed out the plat would be clarified in order for these issues to be made clear. It was indicated the sidewalk would be constructed as requested. There was a general discussion of the proposal resulting in the Committee forwarding the.item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 30, 1992) The Planning staff offered its recommendation of approval of this planned residential district. The only add on or continuing item for resolution attendant to this project consists of the sidewalk requirement adjacent to Riverfront Drive. Staff reported that the Parks Department has devised a project which will provide a bicycle or hiking trail along Riverfront Drive to tie several parks. Mr. Joe White was present and represented the proposal. Mr. White indicated that his client was agreeable to build a sidewalk or in the instance of the bicycle trail offered in lieu contribution which will be linked to the actual sidewalk cost. The Chairman then asked the Parks Department representative if he would offer comments on the proposal. Mark Webb, representing Parks and Recreation, presented a brief outline of the proposed bicycle trail which he indicated would tie several parks along the river in a continuous pedestrian relationship. He indicated that continuity of the project for similar types of material throughout would be appropriate. A commissioner asked Mr. Webb if it would not be possible to perhaps locate the trail away from the current proposed alignment on the east side of the parkway. The reason being that this location appears to present danger car turning movement throughout the area at the intersections. A brief discussion of that suggestion resulted in no specific action. After a brief follow-on discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the planned residential district as modified to 15 lots with the several design changes, and permission to extend the in lieu contribution for the Riverfront Drive sidewalk in the amount of the estimated sidewalk cost. The vote on the motion passed by 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Walker). 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PRD DISTRICT TITLED RIVER HEIGHTS (Z -4987-B) 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 District (PCD) to Planned Residential District (PRD) . A parcel of land in NE 1/4 of Section 33, T -2-N, R -12-W, Pulaski County, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: A tract of land located in NE 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 32, and in the NW 1/4 NW 1/4, Section 33, T -2-N, R -12-W, Pulaski County, Arkansas, more particularly described as : Starting at the NW corner of Tract D -2A, Riverdale Addition to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; thence N1603612511W along the centerline of a 50 foot sanitary sewer easement 25.4 feet to a point on the centerline of an access utility and drainage easement; thence S7001410011W along said centerline 25.4 feet to the point of beginning; thence S700141W and continuing along said centerline 325.54 feet to a point on the Easterly Right -of -Way line of Riverfront Drive; thence N1904610011W along said Easterly Right -of -Way line 401.18 feet to a point 4.0 feet South of an existing curb line; thence N7001511011E along a line 4.0 feet South area and parallel width said curb line 152.5 feet; thence N2101415211E 80.0 feet; thence N5400110211E 129.56 feet; thence S4405815711E 50.0 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said 50 foot sanitary sewer easement; thence S1603612511E along said Southerly line 453.07 feet to the point of beginning containing 3.39 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 River Heights (Short -form PRD) is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval within the time specified by Chapter 36, Article VII, Section 36-454(d) 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 S. That this ORDINANCE shall take,effect and be in full force upon final approval of the plan. PASSED: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor June 30, 1992 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z -4987-B NAME: River Heights - PRD Short -form LOCATION: NE Corner of Canal Pointe at Riverfront Drive REQUEST: To reclassify from "PCD" to "PRD" DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: R.G.I. REALTY GROUP, INC. WHITE-DATERS, INC. H. BRADLEY WALKER 401 Victory Street 1500 Riverfront Drive Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72202 374-1666 666-4242 AREA: 3.39 Ac. NUMBER OF LOTS: 17 FT. NEW STREET: 0 public street ZONING:PCD PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 CENSUS TRACT• 15 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. PROPOSALIREQUEST: Single Family NAME: Heights - Hillcrest This application is a continuation of the Canal Pointe project, which lies immediately to the northeast. The project is proposed for single family homes on small lots, a private street system with a controlled access, shared open space and access to the canal facility and the marina. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The area on which this subdivision will be developed is cleared and part of the former golf course area. The land lies immediately adjacent to Riverfront Drive northbound lanes. The access will be from the existing street lying on the southeasterly side of the project affording a safe entry to and from the development. There are no site physical constraints to the design of this project. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Construct sidewalks along Riverfront Drive. 1 June 30, 1992 PRD ITEM NO.: 4 Continued FXLE NO.: Z -4987-B D. ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: The plat as submitted requires some modification due to confusion about the several lines as to whether they are property lines, street pavement lines or some other easement line. The several items staff requires to be modified within the plat submittal are as follows: 1. Clarify the transition of property lines into street pavement lines at several points on the plat. 2. On River Heights cul-de-sac, specify whether the curb and easement line are one in the same or whether the lot line falls to the center of the street. 3. Place dimensions on Lot 17 to clarify building relationship. 4. Indicate River Height Road as access, utility and drainage easement. 5. Explain the curb alignment across the northwesterly corner of the plat intruding upon one of the lots. 6. Submit a narrative on the typical home to be constructed as to floor space, height and other physical characteristics. 7. Indicate relationship of plat to 100 year floodplain elevation. 8. Resubmit plat including the new design with fewer lots, and include the several items left off the plat at submittal. E. ANALYSIS• Staff review of this project is that it is entirely appropriate to the location and character of the neighborhood. The project proposal is a continuing effort of a quality project. There are no land use issues associated with the proposal. There are no significant design issues associated. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the planned residential district with the several modifications which we have indicated above, and the construction of sidewalk along Riverfront Drive as requested by Public Works. 2 June 30, 1992 .M ITEM NO.: 4 Continued FILE NO.: Z -4987-B SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 11, 1992) The application was represented by Mr. Joe White of White-Daters, Inc. Mr. White presented a modified preliminary plat for this proposal which reduced the total number of lots to fifteen. Mr. White addressed the several questions raised by staff as to easement lines, right-of-way lines etc. He pointed out the plat would be clarified in order for these issues to be made clear. It was indicated the sidewalk would be constructed as requested. There was a general discussion of the proposal resulting in the Committee forwarding the item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 30, 1992) The Planning staff offered its recommendation of approval of this planned residential district. The only add on or continuing item for resolution attendant to this project consists of the sidewalk requirement adjacent to Riverfront Drive. Staff reported that the Parks Department has devised a project which will provide a bicycle or hiking trail along Riverfront Drive to tie several parks. Mr. Joe White was present and represented the proposal. Mr. White indicated that his client was agreeable to build a sidewalk or in the instance of the bicycle trail offered in lieu contribution which will be linked to the actual sidewalk cost. The Chairman then asked the Parks Department representative if he would offer comments on the proposal. Mark Webb, representing Parks and Recreation, presented a brief outline of the proposed bicycle trail which he indicated would tie several parks along the river in a continuous pedestrian relationship. He indicated that continuity of the project for similar types of material throughout would be appropriate. A commissioner asked Mr. Webb if it would not be possible to perhaps locate the trail away from the current proposed alignment on the east side of the parkway. The reason being that this location appears to present danger car turning movement throughout the area at the intersections. A brief discussion of that suggestion resulted in no specific action. After a brief follow-on discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the planned residential district as modified to 15 lots with the several design changes, and permission to extend the in lieu contribution for the Riverfront Drive sidewalk in the amount of the estimated sidewalk cost. The vote on the motion passed by 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Walker).