Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4483 Staff Analysisenter 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - File No. 598 LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Munford, Inc. 324 W. Pershing NLR, AR 72214 AREA: Majik Market - Highway 10 "Short -Form PCD" (Z-4483) South of Highway 10 at Southridge APPLICANT: H. Bradley Walker Phone: 371-0808, 666-4316 ENGINEER: Mehlburger and Associates Little Rock, AR Phone: 375-5331 NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R-2" to "PCD" PROPOSED USE: Convenience Store A. Subdivision Committee Review At the Subdivision Committee.meeting, the chairman asked that a revised write-up be done on this item in a fashion similar to that used if the item was a proposed project. The revised review is as follows. Also, the applicant mentioned the possibility of in -lieu contrib.:tions on Highway 10. B. Site Histor This site was annexed to the City on May 2, 1978, with the existing use in place. There has been only a single request for rezoning the parcel to "C-3," which was ultimately rejected by the City Board. The applicant was Mr. Lou Schickel. C. Existing Conditions The property fronts on Highway 10, which is a principal arterial requiring 100' of right-of-way and potential dedication from the site. Access to the site may be effected by the location of the property at a high volume intersection, which is projected for a traffic 1985 Z�r Ucontinued signal. The existing curb cuts present a conflict with signalization. The Suburban Plan indicates neighborhood commercial at this location. Physically, the tract forms a unique configuration that abuts a hill mass to the south. It is estimated that 30 percent of the land is unbuildable due to grade. D. Development_Proposal This is a request for "PCD" approval of an addition to a nonconforming use. The applicant has constructed a new canopy and gasoline pumps on an existing island at a convenient store that is located on an "R-2" single family site. They are located in an area established by a 40 -foot building line. The canopy is located approximately 14 feet from the street, and the island is set back by 23.5 feet. E. Engineering Comments No adverse comments. The applicant should specify plans for street improvements on Highway 10. F. Analysis Planning Commission review was prompted by several events. Initially, the applicant/owner proceeded without proper approvals to remove the existing tanks, pumps and canopy on the site. In the course of relocating these elements, the circumstances were brought to the attention of building permits. Over a period of two weeks, the owner and his attorney were advised of appropriate remedies that should proceed completion of the work. The owner and the contractor proceeded to finalize the erection of the pumps and canopy in spite of being directed to stop work. After completion, a period of two weeks passed before a request for a Planned Commercial District "PCD" was filed. The choice of a PUD was made by the Attorney for the owner. It has been noted that the site has unique topographical features that restrict the buildable areas so that options are very limited as to where the structure and related parking can be located. For this reason, staff feels that if the circumstances were different and if a proposal of this nature was presented on raw land, the use of the site for the existing use would be discouraged. On the other hand, b4b" 1 5 - Continued since the existing structure has been on the property since incorporation into the City, staff would have taken the design constraitionsts into to thesexistingnif use. approached about the add Other than physical features, several other problems have been found. Traffic flow to the site and within the project does not present an ideal situation. The location of the curbs is such hWthat theeis a straight shot into the Highway 10 and intersection. Internally, there is a conflict between some existing Parking spaces and the proposed pump island which restricts maneuvering space. The canopy is located in the building setback area. Staff feels that more maneuvering space is needed within the site and that the intersection conflicts need to be minimized. The design needs to be reviewed and the revised plan should be approved by the Traffic Engineer. Staff would suggest as possible solutions: (1) shifting the easternmost curb cut at least 34' to the east; (2) shifting the pump island to the east, reducing the size of the canopy and moving it to within 15' of the front property line; (3) revising layoutanf parking spaces at the southeasterly property (4) requiring a final plat for permanent location of curb cuts and dedication of right-of-way. G. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to the above comments. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was represented by attorney Bradley Walker. There were no objectors. Staff stated its suggestions for revision (see analysis). Mr. Jim Hathcock gave an overview of the events leading to the filing of this application. He explained that the building permit application indicated remodeling with no exterior work; therefore, his staff was unaware that expansion of the canopy and pumps was intended. Mr. Walker explained that his client had no dishonest intentions, and there was a breakdown in communication between the building permits clerk and representative i�fthethe processuofion company. He explained 10, 1985 r S ONS No. 6 - Continued working out the present problems, the applicant had lost its nonconforming status, so a PCD was the only way to alleviate the problem. He felt that it was a hardship on this applicant to remove the pumps. He also had problems with the right-of-way dedication since the State Highway Department had no plans for the land to be dedicated. Mr. Walker also took consent to the dedication if his client would be allowed to keep the use of the island and pumps. Finally, a motion for approval of the existing plan was made and passed, subject to: (1) the right-of-way agreement, (2) in -lieu contribution and (3) one -lot final plat. The vote was: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. A# September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued since the existing structure has been on the property since incorporation into the City, staff would have taken the design constraints into consideration if approached about the additions to the existing use. Other than physical features, several other problems have been found. Traffic flow to the site and within the project does not present an ideal situation. The location of the curbs is such that there is a -straight shot into the Highway 10 and Walton Heights intersection. Internally, there is a conflict between some existing parking spaces and the proposed pump island which restricts maneuvering space. The canopy is located in the building setback area. Staff feels that more maneuvering space is needed within the site and that the intersection conflicts need to be minimized. The design needs to be reviewed and the revised plan should be approved by the Traffic Engineer. Staff would suggest as possible solutions: (1) shifting the easternmost curb cut at least 30' to the east; (2) shifting the pump island to the east, reducing the size of the canopy and moving it to within 15' of the front property line; (3) revising layout of parking spaces at the southeasterly property line; and (4) requiring a final plat for permanent location of curb cuts and dedication of right-of-way. G. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to the above comments. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued signal. The existing curb cuts present a conflict with signalization. The Suburban Plan indicates neighborhood commercial at this location. Physically, the tract forms a unique configuration that abuts a hill mass to the south. It is estimated that 30 percent of the land is unbuildable due to grade. D. Development Pro osal This is a request for "PCD" approval of an addition to a nonconforming use. The applicant has constructed a new canopy and gasoline pumps on an existing island at a convenient store that is located on an "R-2" single family site. They are located in an area established by a 40 -foot building line. The canopy is located approximately 14 feet from the street, and the island is set back by 23.5 feet. E. Enaineering Comments No adverse comments. The applicant should specify plans for street improvements on Highway 10. F. Ana_ZYsis Planning Commission review was prompted by several events. Initially, the applicant/owner proceeded without proper approvals to remove the existing tanks, pumps and canopy on the site. In the course of relocating these elements, the circumstances were brought to the attention of building permits. Over a period of two weeks, the owner and his attorney were advised of appropriate remedies that should proceed completion of the work. The owner and the contractor proceeded to finalize the erection of the pumps and canopy in spite of being directed to stop work. After completion, a period of two weeks passed before a request for a Planned Commercial District "PCD" was filed. The choice of a PUD was made by the Attorney for the owner. It has been noted that the site has unique topographical features that restrict the buildable areas so that options are very limited as to where the structure and related parking can be located. For this reason, staff feels that if the circumstances were different and if a proposal of this nature was presented on raw land, the use of the site for the existing use would be discouraged. On the other hand, September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued signal. The existing curb cuts present a conflict with signalization. The Suburban Plan indicates neighborhood commercial at this location. Physically, the tract forms a unique configuration that abuts a hill mass to the south. It is estimated that 30 percent of the land is unbuildable due to grade. D. Development Proposal This is a request for "PCD" approval of an addition to a nonconforming use. The applicant has constructed a new canopy and gasoline pumps on an existing island at a convenient store that is located on an "R-2" single family site. They are located in an area established by a 40 -foot building line. The canopy is located approximately 14 feet from the street, and the island is set back by 23.5 feet. E. Engineering Comments No adverse comments. The applicant should specify plans for street improvements on Highway 10. F. Analysis Planning Commission review was prompted by several events. Initially, the applicant/owner proceeded without proper approvals to remove the existing tanks, pumps and canopy on the site. In the course of relocating these elements, the circumstances were brought to the attention of building permits. Over a period of two weeks, the owner and his -attorney were advised of appropriate remedies that should proceed completion of the work. The owner and the contractor proceeded to finalize the erection of the pumps and canopy in spite of being directed to stop work. After completion, a period of two weeks passed before a request for a Planned Commercial District "PCD" was filed. The choice of a PUD was made by the Attorney for the owner. It has been noted that the site has unique topographical features that restrict the buildable areas so that options are very limited as to where the structure and related parking can be located. For this reason, staff feels that if the circumstances were different and if a proposal of this nature was presented on raw land, the use of the site for the existing use would be discouraged. On the other hand, September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued since the exi&ting structure has been on the property since incorporation into the City, staff would have taken the design constraints into consideration if approached about the additions to the existing use. Other than physical features, several other problems have been found. Traffic flow to the site and within the project does not present an ideal situation. The location of the curbs is such that there is a straight shot into the Highway 10 and Walton Heights intersection. Internally, there is a conflict between some existing parking spaces and the proposed pump island which restricts maneuvering space. The canopy is located in the building setback area. Staff feels that more maneuvering space is needed within the site and that the intersection conflicts need to be minimized. The design needs to be reviewed and the revised plan should be approved by the Traffic Engineer. Staff would suggest as possible solutions: (1) shifting the easternmost curb cut at least 30' to the east; (2) shifting the pump island to the east, reducing the size of the canopy and moving it to within 15' of the front property line; (3) revising layout of parking spaces at the southeasterly property line; and (4) requiring a final plat for permanent location of curb cuts and dedication of right-of-way. G. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to the above comments.