HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0882 Staff AnalysisSeptember 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME
�P - �V4�'� t-J
N, *,� eAm�aR' LOCATION:
i
AGENT:
AS - 35"' c{ ro,v .
Pe5 dtnceS 1(� 6�e� /(!Yt
&- , A °tC,I
L'1 rt " a-t C4 -,--s
sOrenc( O fi
i r\ Oeq d
joe_ICe^-f + 1,
` Y�`lr�kRrj�. Tom
rwe,
Seth Barnhard
DEVELOPER:
Courtyard Development
c/o Financial Centre
Dev. Co.
P.O. Box 56350
Little Rock, AR 72215
Phone: 224-9600
Mariott Courtyard Hotel
(Garden Plaza Revised PCD)
(Z-4485-A)
North Side of Financial Centre
Parkway, approximately 600'
west of Shackleford�
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 374-1666
_ t con ng�f
;celS ")REA : 4.35 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1
u� fesst�
C�e ZONING: "C-3"/"O-3" to PCD
�j �9�iPR
t"OPOSED
�
�0 1 do Li C.. -04L 5e C.
Jrram
W Fr� 1 A. Development Objective
u Sma t}5ccu��) ( 1
USES: Hotel
�n
r�ta`I�
Associates \,G.l';
� ri *�
kQ`tn
FT. NEW ST.: 0
To develop a hotel resulting from "The Courtyard
Concept," which is targeted toward the moderate
segment of the population. The concept provides
hotels with: (1) attractive, comfortable,
functional rooms; (2) a relaxing, secure
environment; (3) a simple restaurant with good
food; (4) a well managed operation with friendly,
helpful employees; and (5) an affordable price.-
B. Proposal
(1) The construction of a building for use as a hotel
according to the following:
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
J
L�} ( Mt �11uq%
p IL
rAl \\+ DV)
(2)
(a) Number of rooms .............
(b) Number of suites ............
(c) 2 conference rooms ..........
(d) Restaurant ..................
(46 seats)
(e) Lounge ......................
(36 seats)
(f) Guest room wings are 3-stories
where public areas are 1-story
(g) Parking .....................
(h) Building area ...............
( i ) Ratio of bldg. to land .....
Developmental Time Frame:
149
12
1525 sq. ft.
1090 sq. ft.
960 sq. ft.
164
87,000 sq. ft.
19.9
Opening Date - 4th Quarter of 1987
Construction - Begins lst Quarter of 1987
(3) Drainage:
The developer will utilize the parking lots or an
underground system for retention areas as required
by the City Drainage Ordinance.
(4) Plattinq:
A one lot replat will be submitted.
(5) Landscaping/Site Development:
The property will be developed in such a way as to
minimize excavation as much as possible. The lawn
and planting areas around the hotel will be
heavily planted. Included is a 25 to 32-foot
landscaped buffer strip along adjacent residential
4 A 5 areas.
�-� C. Engineering Comments
A (1 ) The Traffic Engineer requires that the opposite
side of the street on Financial Centre Parkway at
4 the western access point be shown in order to
�MIM determine the proper location for the access point
( p ( C
( r
Lo+�l — 1) L" ( 5-( t r
KrS 6e r < < I la �-ce _ f, 6 r /_5
L rC e n % fi r V,f e vv_l r
Y- QFndzr�l
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
in regard to the existing median cut on Financial
Centre parkway.
(2) Stormwater detention calculations are required in
the location shown on the preliminary plat.
(3) Right-of-way dedication on Financial Centre
Parkway may be required.
D. Analysis
The applicant has stated that changes from the proposal
that was originally approved on this site include: (1)
the reduction to 3-stories from 5; (2) size reduction
of meeting rooms, restaurant and lounge facility; (3)
reduction of rooms by 59; (4) reduction in the scale of
the building and no orientation of rooms toward the
neighborhood. The original plan had one wing facing
the neighbors and more parking located next to the
neighborhood.
The main issue is the location of the building closer
to the neighborhood than originally sited. However,
the landscaped buffer zone remains a minimum of 25'
wide along the north and has been increased to 32' at
the northwest corner. Staff expects some input from
residents regarding this change. Engineering comments
have been addressed.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval as revised.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (7-31-86)
The applicant requested a 30 day deferral.
September 9, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion yfor a 30-day deferral, as requested by the
applicant, was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes
and 0 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8-28-86)
The applicant was present. He outlined several differences
between this proposal and the previous hotel approved for
this site. Staff indicated that all concerns had been
addressed. The item was passed to the Commission.