Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4878 Staff Analysise August 11, 1:9.87 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 - Z-4878 NAME: T,OC AT T ON OWNER/APPLICANT: PRnPnAAT.! New Hope Church of the Nazarene Conditional Use Permit (Z-4878) 150 feet west of the southwest corner of Hillsboro and Chicot Roads (7709 Hillsboro Road) Kimberly Sue Venable and Elmer Yarberry/ Loretta Dixon To construct a 6,000 square feet church sanctuary (200 capacity), a recreational area, and 24 parking spaces on land that is zoned "R-2." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a residential street (Hillsboro). 2. Compatibility With Neighborhood This property is abutted by vacant land to the north, vacant and single family to the south, single family to the east, and single family to the west. A church use limited to the proposed scale of this project, is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking - The proposal contains one access drive on Hillsboro and 24 parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers No landscape plan has been submitted. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 - Continued 5. Analysis The staff feels that the proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding area. The staff does, however, have a number of reservations with regard to the site plan. The site plan should be revisd to include: 40 paved parking spaces; notations stating that the sanctuary will be one story in height and limiting access to Hillsboro road; landscape areas; and the proposed recreation area. Staff also feels that the Commission should consider collector street standards for Hillsboro Road. The Master Street plan has been amended to delete what was the old alignment of the proposed South Loop. The staff feels that a collector is warranted to move traffic east and west between Heinke and Chicot Roads. 6. City Engineer Comments (1) Meet with City Traffic Engineer to revise parking and access areas; and (2) dedicate/construct Hillsboro Road to City standards by filing a one lot final plat. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval providing: (1) The applicant agrees to submit a revised site plan that includes the revisions as stated in the analysis section; (2) resolution of the street standards by the Commission; and (3) the applicant agrees to comply with City Engineer Comments numbered 1 and 2. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was not present. The Water Works stated that on -site fire protection would be required and that a main extension would also be required. The item was not discussed further. August 11., 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. There were no objectors. The staff stated that the applicant had failed to meet numerous requirements and then recommended withdrawal of the item without prejudice. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 1 open position to withdraw the item without prejudice. November 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 NAME: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REQUEST: STAFF REPORT: Brant Calloway Discussion Item Southwest Corner of Hillsboro and Chicot Road Mr. Brant Calloway 10307 Shannon Hills Drive Mabelvale, AR Phone: 455-3918 or 562-7819 Waiver of Subdivision Requirements The applicant has requested that he be exempted from the requirement to subdivide this property based on past events. In 1946, the property was bought by Elmer and Rosie Yarberry and at time consisted of 20 acres. All of the property was disposed of prior to 1958, except Parcels A, B, C and D. Parcel A has a house on it, Parcel B has a house trailer, and these parcels are owned currently by Dennis and George Yarberry, sons of Elmer and Rosie. Parcel C is still owned by Elmer Yarberry, and Parcel D was recently deeded to Kimberly Sue Venable, a granddaughter who is the daughter of the applicant. The deeds to Parcels A and B were acknowledged prior to annexation of 1979. The applicant now wishes to build a home on Parcel D. Due to extreme hardships incurred by his family over the past year, he cannot afford to subdivide all of the property just to build on one lot. Furthermore, the applicant was not responsible for existing problems due to the way the lots were divided without thought to access. A 60' driveway easement on the south was granted so the abutting property owners would not be landlocked. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee listened to the applicant and advised him to show up at the public hearing. l' November 13, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11-13-84) The owner was present. There were no objectors present. The staff outlined the issue for the Commission and offered a recommendation of approval. The owner stated he had no comments on the matter, but accepted the staff's recommendation. A motion was made for approval of the request. The motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.