Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4042 Staff AnalysisJuly 26, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - File No. 431 - NAME: T.00AT I ON : DEVELOPER: Larry Peters 10,002 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72214 Phone: 225-2830 AREA: 1.64 acres ZONING: "PCD" J (Z-4042) Markham Heights Professional Park - Short Form - "PCD" West of Intersection of Ellis and Markham ARCHITECT: Daniel Chappell 8121 Chatham Drive Little Rock, AR 72076 Phone: 224-6595 NO. OF LOTS: 6 PROPOSED USES: Office A. History of the Site FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 Previous action on this site includes conditional use review by the Commission for the existing veterinary clinic on the southeast portion of the lot and preliminary approval of an office park development on the eastern half of this site. During consideration of the latter, the applicant committed to provide the required buffer and a six-foot fence to shield residential uses abutting on the north. B. Project Objectives: (1) To create an attractive and functional luster of freestanding, separately owned professional office buildings. (2) To construct a combination of one and two-story brick veneer residentially scaled structures with sloping hip rooflines. (3) To provide a landscape section in the front of the total development and around the perimeter of the development. C. Proposal: (1) The proposed construction of five office buildings and the inclusion of an existing veterinary clinic on site of 1.64 acres. July 26, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued (2) Development Schedule: Bldg. Bldg. Bldg. Type No. Size 1 -Story 1 2,800 Sq. Ft. 1 -Story 2 2,052 Sq. Ft. 1 -Story 1 2,520 Sq. Ft. 2 -Story 2 4,608 Sq. Ft. (3) Floor Area 18,640 Sq. Ft. (4) Proposed Building Coverage ...... 25.5% (5) Open Space Private .7 acres Common (Separate Owned by Used by Whole Development) ..... .5 acres (6) Parking ............... 68 spaces D. Engineering Considerations Handicapped parking spaces must be identified. Traffic Engineer requests that first parking space from entry on the first two buildings be eliminated to preclude stacking of vehicles in Markham Street. Request all parking stalls be 20 feet long. E. Analysis Staff is basically favorable to the proposal; however, there are a few issues to be considered. As designed, the northernmost parking spaces will interfere with the commitment for 40 -foot buffer. In such instances, the Ordinance allows a 15 -foot strip to be retained in its natural state. If the ground cover has been removed, the 15'feet should be replanted with greenery natural to the area. A final plat will be needed to assure the dedication, as an access easement, of the entrance drive. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. July 26, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. A brief discussion was held with the result that the applicant agreed to review his design of the rear parking area adjacent to Ellis Acres Addition. This review would attempt to incorporate the minimum 15' of natural green space and the 6' fence required by ordinance. The applicant also stated that he was willing to remove the offending parking space on the eastern front of the property. However, he stated and the Engineering Department agreed that the space on the western front corner did not require removal. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Larry Peters and Mr. Chappel were present in support of the application. Staff reported that Ms. Laura Henchy, a resident of the single family area to the north, called to voice her opposition to the project, especially since it involves two-story buildings on that end of the property. Due to the fact that the applicant did not submit the revised plan requested by the Subdivision Committee, the motion was made and passed for a two-week deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. NOTE: (The Planning Commission determined after its review that the item will be sent to the August 2nd Board meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (7-26-83): The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made and passed for approval of the revised plan. The vote - 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.