Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4987-D Staff Analysis1. Meeting Date: April 6, 1993 2. Case No.: Z-4987-D 3. Request: Approval of Marina Club Apartments PRD 4. Location.: Corner of Riverfront Drive and Turtle Creek Lane 5. Owner/Applicant: David Carl 6. Existing Status: Vacant 7. Proposed Use: Construct a 262-unit/11-building apartment complex. 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval 10. Conditions or Issues Remaining to be Resolved: 1) Approval of Levee District for developer to work on and modify Arkansas River levee. 2) Furnishing of easements on adjoining properties along access drives to break-away gates. 11. Right-of-way Issues: None 12. Recommendation Forwarded with: N/A 13. Objectors: None 14. Neighborhood Plan: Hillcrest (4) ITEM NO.: Z -4987-D REQUEST: Approval of Marina Club Apartments Long -form PRD located at the corner of Turtle Creek Lane and Riverfront Drive. Planning Staff Recommends: Conditional approval Planning Commission Recommends: Conditional approval Remaining issues: Approval of Levee District for work on and modification to the Arkansas River Levee and providing of access easements on adjoining properties to east and west at access drives. Vote: 8 Ayes 0 Noes 2 Absent 1 Abstention 1 FILE NO.: Z -4987-D NAME: Marina Club Apartments - Long -Form PRD LOCATION: Corner of Turtle Creek Lane and Riverfront Drive DEVELOPER: DAVID CARL 12,634 West Ella Drive Houston, TX 77077 713-497-6374 AREA: ±9.00 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: ENGINEER: THE MELHBURGER FIRM P. O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375-5331 1 FT. NEW STREET: ±1,400 ft. ZONING: PUD PROPOSED USES: Apartment Complex PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 CENSUS TRACT• 15 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Buffers along Riverfront Drive and other areas identified. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: This developer proposes to construct 262 dwelling units in a total of 11 buildings, two of which will be occupied by the office leasing area and a clubhouse. The site also includes tennis courts, swimming pool and other fitness and recreational activity areas. The project as offered consists of a series of buildings, most of which are three stories in height. The eastern one-half of the project is proposed to be constructed at a somewhat higher level of elevation than the western one-half. The reason for this is to accommodate raising the living areas and the view of the river over the adjacent levy. There will be a parking structure beneath most of the eastern most buildings. The project proposes two principal access points, one to the north on to Turtle Creek Lane and then to Riverfront Drive. The southern most access would access a private drive adjacent to the marina, and also access Riverfront Drive. Total parking for this project will be 404 spaces with 264 parking spaces within a garage structure and 140 being surface parking. A. PROPOSAL RE QRST: It is the developer's plan to construct a large multifamily development on this site taking advantage of river views by raising the elevation of most of the structures above the FILE NO.: Z -4987-D Continued adjacent levy. There will be six four-story buildings over a parking deck to take advantage of river views for most of the dwellings within the project. Extensive landscaping is proposed on the perimeter of the deck to soften the views of the surrounding area. The remaining buildings in the project will be constructed in order to provide views of the marina to the south and to the courtyards. The project will incorporate two clubhouses, one with a full size workout facility, two pools, two hot tubs, two tennis courts and a racquet ball court. There will be several gazebos and barbecue pits throughout the project. It will be designed for leisure and prestigious location. Be EXISTING CONDITIONS: This tract of land lies on the east side of Riverfront Drive, an area bounded on the north by an existing large apartment complex, on the south by a marina, on the west by a divided arterial street. The site is an open area which is one of the remaining tracts of the original Riverdale Country Club golf course. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: The Excavation and Detention Ordinances apply. A 42 inch sewer main crosses this site. No buildings or physical improvements should be constructed over or near without the approval of the Little Rock Waste Water Utility. On-site fire hydrant system should be clearly indicated with line size and location of all fire hydrants and fire fighting systems. Construct sidewalks on Riverfront Drive or contact the Little Rock Parks Department for a possibility of in lieu contribution to the jogging and hiking trail proposed for construction along this thoroughfare. Relocate any buildings from the levy easement, both parking structure and apartment buildings. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: 1. Any club must be private and for use of residents only. 2. Provide a legal survey this property tied to adjacent lands, especially the marina side. 3. Clarify access on the south across others. 4. Bring the parking to ordinance standard dimensions and design. 5. Remove all parking and drives from the front 40 feet as this area is required for buffer and landscaping. Also, 20 feet is required along the north boundary of the property. K FILE NO.: Z -4987-D Continued 6. Provide a landscape plan for the entire site showing areas to be devoted to landscaping. 7. The parking and garage detail on the east one-half is insufficient to make judgment. 8. Locate the garage by the provision of a section through the site giving elevations of the various buildings and relationships. 9. The site plan as filed appears to be an overbuilding of the site. However, this judgment cannot be firm until a better complete site plan is offered. 10. The method for fire truck access at the southwest corner should be indicated on the drawing. 11. Renderings of the structural treatment of the levy versus building and parking deck should be filed. 12. The handicapped stalls require additional design work. E. ANALYSIS• The Planning staff has worked with this developer in an attempt to present to the Commission a thoroughly thought out residential planned unit development submittal. At this writing, the staff is reviewing this proposal from a sketchy plan without benefit of elevations, sections or other details to visually and physically tie this project to the development on the south. There are quite a number of areas of information that we require prior to developing a recommendation on this case. It is our opinion that Mr. Carl needs to do additional work on this project. Its magnitude requires significant input of time, energy and design. The plan presented to us, at this time, does not fulfill the review requirements of a planned unit development. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends a deferral of this application until the Planning Commission on December 15 and offers to work with the developer toward the resolution of the numerous areas of question. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 15, 1992) There was no one present to represent this case. After a brief discussion of staff concerns, this item was forwarded to the full Commission for resolution. 3 FILE NO.: Z -4987-D (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 3, 1992) There were no objectors present. The applicant, Mr. David Carl, was in attendance. The Chairman asked staff to offer its recommendation. Richard Wood of staff reported that the complete and detailed plans of this project were received too late in order to properly review and process the information. Staff has discussed the application and a deferral with Mr. Carl. He has indicated that he will accept the deferral to December 15 in order to properly receive review and staff input. The Chairman then asked Mr. Carl if he had comments. Mr. Carl stated that staff had reported the item as he understood the issue. He accepted the deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to December 15. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 25, 1992) The applicant, Mr. David Carl, was present. The Planning staff offered a lengthy list consisting of some 16 areas of interest or concern on the part of the staff. These items dealt with design detail for the revised site plan. These 16 areas were discussed at length with little or no resolution to the several principal concerns. Those concerns being a provision for a lower density on this site than the 37 units per acre which is apparent from the numbers produced on the drawing. Additionally, the landscaping and buffering ordinance is substantially ignored in the design of this project with very minimum perimeter landscaping strips and no buffering. Staff pointed out that a plan had been submitted illustrating a section through the site running east to west, and illustrating the relationship of the four story buildings with the parking deck and levee. Staff voiced several concerns about the construction of piers or foundations within and upon a river levee. Jerry Gardner of the Public Works Department suggested to the Commission that a specific report would be required from the levee district as to whether the construction proposed would be permitted. Public Works maintains a position that the levee should not be constructed upon by such structures as these, massive in nature and multiply stories. Planning staff pointed out in the section drawing it is apparent that a parallel surface drainage proposal places a line immediately on top of a 42 inch sewer line. If this is in fact the manner in which this is to be constructed, the Little Rock Waste Water Utility must approve the location of the line and its placement within the utility easement. 4 FILE NO.: Z -4987-D (Continued In closing the discussion, it was pointed out by staff and the Committee that Mr. Carl should review his development, especially with respect to the density and whether he is utilizing lands beyond his property line for additional density. This should be identified and located on the drawing. Justification for elimination of the required landscape and buffer strips should be provided as well as a follow-up on the detention and excavation ordinance requirements. The Committee forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. NOTE: The Little Rock_ Fire Department reported on December 4 that this plan cannot be approved by them due to the design of the deck, inaccessible multi -story buildings and poor site access for large nieces of fire ecruipment. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 15, 1992) The applicant, Mr. David Carl, was in attendance. The Planning staff reported that Mr. Carl continued having some difficulty complying with the Fire Department's access requirements and several other design issues. Mr. Carl indicated that he would prefer a deferral of this application until a meeting in January to accomplish a revision of his site development plan. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined to place this item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to that effect was made. The application was approved for deferral by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 2 abstentions (Kathleen Oleson and Brad Walker). SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 18, 1993) Mr. Frank Riggins with the Mehlburger Firm was present to provide updated information to the Committee. Revised drawings have been submitted and were presented to the Committee. Mr. Riggins related that soils testing had been conducted on the levee and the developer is seeking approval of the Levee District to construct a seawall. Since the Planning Commission hearing, the following has been submitted: A boundary survey, a soil report on the levee, a detail of the seawall, information on the fire access road and easement, specifications addressing the fire protection equipment of the building, fire hydrant locations as per the fire marshal's recommendations, a revised site plan showing a sidewalk along Riverfront Drive, landscaping plan, and a breakaway gate detail. Approval of the Levee District is pending. The revised drawings were submitted to the various utilities and Public Works. To date, Arkla and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company have responded and approved the submittal. Little Rock Municipal Water Works reiterated that on-site fire protection will be required. 5 FILE NO.: Z -4987-D Continued After the presentation of the updated information and a question - and -answer period by the Committee and staff, the Committee forwarded this item to the Commission for approval, subject to receiving Levee District approval for construction of the seawall. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 9, 1993) Mr. Frank Riggins with the Mehlburger Firm, was present to represent the applicant. No one else either in support of or in objection to the item indicated their presence at the hearing. Staff presented the item, indicating that almost all problems had been resolved. Two matters remain to be resolved, but it was explained that the approval of the preliminary plat and plan could be granted, conditioned on these two matters being resolved to staff's satisfaction. Since the construction will involve cutting into the Arkansas River levee, Levee District approval is required. This approval is pending. Approval of the preliminary plat and plan should be contingent on evidence being presented to staff that the Levee District has approved the work. Also, beyond the east and west property lines, there are existing drives on adjoining properties which the subject property will need to share; that the proposed development will need to add on to and extend; and that provide emergency egress and access for emergency equipment through break -away gates. Permanent easements must be dedicated on the adjoining property for these drives. Mr. Riggins confirmed that he was aware of these conditions, and asked that the preliminary plat be approved subject to the conditions outlined. The motion was made and seconded to recommend to the Hoard of Directors the approval of the PRD, subject to the conditions of Levee District approval and the providing of easements at the drives. The motion passed with 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Walker). 6