Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5127-A Staff Analysisinuary 30, 1990 JBDIVISION ................................... 'EM NO.: 4 -, ILE NO.: _.. ...... Z-5127-A NAME Woodland Heights Office/Space Center LOCATION; 13041 Beckenham Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Rees Development Co. 13401 Beckenham Drive White-Dat 401 Victory & Associates Little Rock, AR 72212 224-3826 Little Rock, AR 72202 374-1666 AREA: 3.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: ZONING: "O-2"I FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Office/storage PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 - Highway 10 CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The tract in this application is one of the few undeveloped properties ill this neighborhood and is surrounded b remaining Y a mix of office buildings and residential. The building consists of the construction of an office bui lrling arca Five mini-storage building ori the g b'lildings. The front and glass Windowsrwi}thtcanil1 be an office with brick frottt parkin pies and a Steel roof. There Will be 28 g spaces for this 13 building. ,000 square £flat office The remaining five buildings will vary in size from 10,800 square feet to 5,400 square feet. storage spaces. These will be The developer plans to have 50 30 feet on the north and south foot setbacks on the front the developer proposes 50-65 feet Aoftbuffer he rzone. f the site, property also i will be surrounded by The y a six foot fence which tont of the development. 1 j January 30, 1990 ' SUBDIVISION Item- No. _4_ (.Continued) A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The developer proposes the construction of an office building and five mini storage buildings on a three acre tract. The site is proposed to be entered from Woodland Heights Road. The proposal includes buffer area along the west property line. B. EXI-STING.CONDITIONS: This site, approximately three acres in area, is cleared. The property is accessed by a street along the east boundary. The area to the north is currently vacant and zoned for office use. The area to the south is currently occupied by a small engine repair shop and residential house. To the west along Pleasant Forest Cove and rearing this project are single family homes. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Site Plan is based on obsolete survey; new information required on existing street names, right of way and improvements. Engineering and survey certificates are not in conformance with City of Little Rock requirements. Detention and excavation ordinances apply. D. ISSUES/.LEGAL/.TECHNICAL/DESIGN: This PUD filing is rather incomplete in nature with a failing of several important elements, one being a proper updated survey of the site. The site plan is only partially dimensioned, thereby leaving too many elements to question. This is a significant issue for a PUD and the subsequent plat that will be required. There are also a number of site plan elements missing. These include the source of title, and book and page on the certificate of ownership, preliminary engineering' certificate, legal description and existing street names. Finally, we would like to point out that the properties on this site have been involved in previous applications. This subdivision plat, when approved by the Planning Commission, was approved for Nursery PCD development. 2 January 30, 199:0 SUBDIVISION Item. No, ... 4.• (Continued). E. ANALYSIS.: The staff view of this proposal is that the•project requires significant changes due to its impact on the adjacent residential properties to the west.. There are a number of homes along Pleasant Forest Cove that rear upon this property. If it is to be approved, it is our feeling that a significant buffering action should occur adjacent to the rear property lines of those homes. There are also several additional items concerning the site plan we feel require additional work on the part of the developer. This includes the updated survey and site plan completely dimensioned; and the redesign of the several buildings to increase compatibility with neighbors. If required to offer a recommendation on this project -'at this time, we will recommend denial because of the'land"use plan incompatibility and spot use of a warehouse nature. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE, -,COMMENTS: (January 18, 1990) Mr. Rees was present as was his contractor for this project. A lengthy discussion followed, principally dealing with land use concerns. These had to do with questions concerning the residential neighborhood directly west, and spot use of a warehouse nature. Mr. Rees agreed to meet with the neighborhood, and submit an updated survey and site 1, before Thursday noon of next week. I 3 F . STAFF... RECOMMENDATION : The staff feels that this PUD filing is of such a art nature that a proper review cannot be accomplished at. this time. We would suggest that the applicant request a withdrawal and resubmit it in a proper form in order to answer the several issues pointed out above. We would like to point out that the previous PUD on this '�- site was controversial with and caused orditlance amendments in order to deal with a nursery and landscape business. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE, -,COMMENTS: (January 18, 1990) Mr. Rees was present as was his contractor for this project. A lengthy discussion followed, principally dealing with land use concerns. These had to do with questions concerning the residential neighborhood directly west, and spot use of a warehouse nature. Mr. Rees agreed to meet with the neighborhood, and submit an updated survey and site 1, before Thursday noon of next week. I 3 January 30, 1990 SUBDIVISION Item No. 4 (Continued) As a last item, the Engineering staff pointed out that the applicant would need to comply with Detention and Excavation ordinances. The Water Works Department would need to approve an on-site fire hydrant and determine the depth of raw water lines. There being no further discussion, the item was forwarded to the full Commission for resolution.