Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0159-D Staff AnalysisFebruary 21, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-5152 NAME: Suitemark Planned Commercial District Short -form LOCATION: At the northeast corner of Hardin Road at Financial Centre Parkway. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Financial Centre Corporation White-Daters & Associates by Edward K. Willis 401 Victory Street 10825 Financial Centre Parkway Little Rock, AR 72201 Suite 425 374-1666 Little Rock, AR 72125 224-9600 AREA: 2.99 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 262 ZONING: "0-3" General Office and "C-3" General Commercial District PROPOSED USES: A 128 room hotel PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.01 STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: This project will be a 128-room suite hotel composed of three framed building, one being a combination of three and four story, one three story and one single story situated on a sloped site surrounded by on -grade parking. Buildings will be approximately 35,500 square feet, 30,300 square feet and 6,300 square feet respectively, for a gross footage of approximately 72,000 square feet. The materials for construction will be wood stick framing with prefabricated floor and roof trusses on a concrete slab on -grade with a retaining wall at the four-story structure. The exterior finish will be a flexible stucco material and a metal roof. Due to the nature of the topography of the site, the highest building will be perceived to be three stories. The fourth floor is located on the downhill interior court side of the building and will have a height of approximately 40 feet to the ridge line from the slab. February 21, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 6 (Continued) Both rooms and buildings will be accessible to handicapped patrons and an elevator will be located in each building to access all floors. The enclosed courtyard will contain a swimming pool and spa with an accompanying free-standing mechanical storage room building. Parking will include landscaped islands with asphalt paving and concrete curbs. Ingress and egress will be from two points on Hardin Road and one point on Financial Centre Court. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This developer proposes the construction of 128 room suites hotel. The project site is rolling terrain and contains access on both Hardin Road and an easement access to Financial Centre Parkway. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: J This site approximately three acres in area currently is cleared of underbrush. However, it does contain some mature timber. The property is accessed by a street along the west boundary which has median -cut access into Financial Centre Parkway providing good circulation to and from the property. The area to the north is currently vacant and zoned office use. The area to the east is occupied by the Marriott Hotel. To the south lies a small drive-in branch bank site which will front onto Financial Centre Parkway and across the Parkway south of that property is the Financial Centre complex. To the west along Hardin Road and rearing upon the Springwood Drive area of Birchwood is a large tract zoned as general office. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Extend Hardin Road physical improvements to the north end of the project. 2. Provide a four foot sidewalk along this street frontage. 3. Address Stormwater and Excavation Ordinance requirements. February 21, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: There are no issues of concern associated with this project. The only design concern relates to the provision of dumpster sites and the manner in which they are to be screened from view of the residential area to the northeast. E. ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff review of this plan reveals few, if any, comments concerning the design or use of the project. It appears to be a very good project, well sited and well designed. The buildings appropriately align with the contour so as to utilize the hill mass to subdue the vertical height of the buildings. The orientation of the structures is such that drive and parking layouts function well. Access to the site appears to be good along Hardin Road. The secondary access point on the access easement should help in traffic circulation. There are, of course, concerns that this site like several other large developments adjacent will be somewhat impacted by the additional traffic flows once the parkway is completed. There are, however, median cuts at several points that will allow crossing of traffic to make turning movements in both directions. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the completion of the improvements as recommended by the Public Works Department and provision for dumpster location and screening. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 9, 1989) The Committee briefly discussed the proposal. Mr. Joe White was present representing the application as was Mr. Ed Willis of Financial Centre Corporation. The Staff indicated there was very little in the way of concern about this proposal. It reflected good design and good location for the use. The only item for discussion which the Committee asked the Engineer to review was the dumpster. Mr. White indicated that he would review possibilities on the site for placement of the dumpster and provide that information before the Commission meeting on the 21st. February 21, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 21, 1989) There were no objectors in attendance. The application was represented by Mr. Joe White, the engineer, and Mr. Ed Willis. Mr. White presented a revised layout of this project. This revision concerned a change desired by the developer. The change proposed movement of the canopy at the lobby area to the east face of the building as opposed to the west face. The only change of consequence in the plan would be the movement of the swimming pool to the west side of the project and a 1800 turnover of the central building. That building will remain the same floor area and footprint. The dumpster location was also identified as required on this plan and shown adjacent to the swimming pool. The Planning Staff recommended approval of the revisions and suggested that the item be placed on the Consent Agenda for approval. The Commission determined it appropriate to place this item in the Consent Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent. The application was approved as modified.