Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0461 Staff AnalysisDecember 13, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 NAME: T nrAMTnX7. T1V[7VT nT]L'U . Reservoir Terrace Apts. Site Plan Review East side of Reservoir, approximately 200' north of intersection of Northedge and Reservoir Road Win Group Dev. Corp. Cromwell, Truemper, Levy, Parker 5500 S. University and Woodsmall Little Rock, AR 1 Spring Street Phone: 664-8900 Little Rock, AR Phone: 372-2900 AREA: 9.60 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-5" PROPOSED USES: Apartments REQUEST: Site plan -review of a multiple building site. A. Site History None. B. Proposal (1) The construction of 11 buildings with 240 units on a 9.5978 acre site (two phase area). (2) Building Breakdown No. of First Floor Bldg. Units Elevation 1 24 470' 2 12 460' 3 12 430' 4 24 434' 5 24 422' 6 12 414' 7 12 394' 8 36 390' 9 12 396' 10 12 398' 11 24 4021 December 13, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continued Building Coverage .......... 11% (3) Unit Mix: Unit No. Type Size Total 144 1 Bedroom 575 sq. ft. 82,800 sq. ft. 60 2 Bedroom 750 sq. ft. 45,000 sq. ft. (4) Parking ......... 306 spaces (5) Other Features/Amenities (a) The provision of washers and dryers. (b) Minimization of the ratio of paved area to total site area by a "loading" building scheme (all entrances from one side of building). (c) Architectural interest is provided by offsets in front plane of buildings occasioned by the need for apartment entrances and stairs. (d) Variation of the rooflines to achieve more visual interest and curb appearance. (6) Developer states deep commitment to landscaping/ screening, evidenced by substantial undisturbed areas of existing trees and underbrush. C. Engineerinq Considerations (a) Dedicate right-of-way on Reservoir Road for minor arterial. (b) Submit internal drainage plan to City Engineer for review. (c) Improve Reservoir Road to minor arterial standards. D. Analysis Staff is not opposed to this project or its design; however, the developer certainly is proposing much physical work on the site. The main issues to be resolved include a Master Street Plan connection which runs through the site and improvements to Reservoir Road. There is some discussion as to whether or not the Brookside Connection is still viable. Current investigation reveals that it is still shown on the December 13, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continued plan, but was taken off the list for projects to be improved. It is generally felt by the staff that this portion of Reservoir can be improved. The applicant should provide us with further data to support his position if he feels otherwise. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to: (1) resolution of Master Street Plan; (2) improvements to Reservoir Road. SUBDIVISI N COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee reviewed the application. There was some discussion as to whether or not this issue warranted a change in the Master Street Plan. The applicant agreed to meet with the City Engineers regarding their plans for the street and report back to the Commission on the 13th of December. The applicant agreed to improve Reservoir Road.- December 13, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 NAME: Christy "PCD" (Z-1716B) LOCATION• Immediately east of Fire Station, at Highway 10 and Southridge DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT: George Christy John C. Ayres Plaza West Office Bldg. Little Rock, AR APPLICANT: Jim Hathaway 1500 Worthen Bank Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-1700 AREA: 1.54 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "PCD" PROPOSED USES: Office VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site Histor This proposal emanated from a previous request for rezoning. The staff suggested that the applicant file this for PCD consideration so as to give some public review and control over the traffic access, size of structure and attended parking regulations. "0-3" zoning was not favored since it would allow several uses out of character with the area. The motion for approval failed for lack of an affirmative vote. B. Development Objectives (1) The utilization of the site entirely for quiet office. (2) The occupation of 2500 to 3000 square feet by the owner and the remaining to be leased to suburban small office uses. (3) Completion of project in 6 to 8 months. � 4 l� December 13, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued C. Development Proposal (1) The construction of an office building on approximately 1.54 acres. (2) The division of the building into f�maximum 600 to Of 17 offices with floor plans varying 900 square feet. (3) The provision of 4.16 parking spaces to each office. (4) The provision of 0.1988 square feet of building to land. (5} Landscaping to include retaining all existing trees over 4" in diameter and the natural landscaping within 8' of the building line. (6) Access to be provided at only one point from Cantrell. Do Engineering Considerations (a) Dedicate right-of-way on Highway 10 for a minor arterial. Coordinate right-of-way requirement and driveway with District 6 of Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. (b) Provide in -lieu consideration toward feertothe improvements on Highway 10; Engineer. determined by Project Engineer and City (c) Driveway's eastern radius extends beyond property line. E . An a� s The issue for discussion is clearly that of use. The he ur fact that the proposal does not conff r thetsiteubisban Plan, which indicates single family worked on by foremost. The plan, which was diligently the staff, should be paramount in any and Furthermore, considerations regarding this request. there is a history of public opposition to such rezonings in the area, and if approved, the Commission could possibly be setting a precedent for further actions of this nature. Adherence to the plan has already been established at earlier requests. F. Staff Recommendation Denial of the request. 14 nber 13► 1983 ,VISIONS No. 8 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: had met with the Waltonvoted reported that h the majority The applicant Owners' Association and was discussed. Heights Property The question of use rohibits a Heig of his plans. policy P in favor Highway 10. The Committee the fact that Boar Staff reiterated Hig to the full ment north of the item commercial def°ether discussion of finally passed Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Several represented the application. Association Hathaway Heights Property Owners' Staff Mr. Jim members of the Waltonresent in Opposition- the project: Directors were P opposing Board of six reasons for reported the following for the use configured inappropriately plan. (1) Site is inapp Suburban Development proposed. to the emphasis upon (2) Proposal is contrary laced particular Highway 10 of Directors plan an dealing with the The Board of the P that p act for property corridor. ative imp We identify a prospective neg (3) Walton Heights. ment opportunities exist values in use such as (4) Acceptable alternative deinstitutional (attached residential or d to commercialization on churches or a library)• (5) proposal will likely lea It is clearly Highway 10 corridor• approach, ment in the (6) proposal is a minimal PP uality develop Ridge incompatible with recent quality area including Systematics and Apartments. stating his hts of the proposal► ave highlig for single family Hathaway g land unsuitableMr. a fire the feeling that the was its locationsnokesperson for zoning, mainly because served as P J.D. Crockett with 372 residents station. Mr. etition ment and hborhood. He submitted a P ro osed develop The main neig that objected to the P P plan. signatures the City's Suburban would set expressed support for that approval of this project the area. was a fear ment in objection commercial develop me precedent for future cember 13, 1983 BDIVISIONS em No. 8 - Continued question was raised as to the extent of staff's volvement at a meeting of the Walton Heights Board of Directors. Ms. Sally Straub, who resides on Rivercrest, responded by assuring the Commission that staff's involvement was requested by the residents and consisted only of a presentation of the Suburban Plan and an explanation of its position based on the six points listed. Mr. Crockett stated that they had met with the developer previously, but had not agreed to go along with the proposal as was reported in the Subdivision Committee Review. As a result of that meeting, the developer promised to revise the Bill of Assurance to include eight restrictions on the development. A motion was made and passed for approval, subject to those restrictions which include: (1) Clean out debris and plant additional planting on South Ridge Drive to provide adequate screening. (2) Agree not to install towers for any use, including large dishes used for television reception. (3) All utilities to be underground. • (4) No buildings of a high elevation and single story. (5) To provide the buildings and grounds as shown on the drawings submitted to your group. The vote was: 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 abstentions.