Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5141-A Staff AnalysisJanuary 10, 1995 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-5141-21 NAME: CORE SOURCE -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: At the west end of Corporate Hill Dr. and the east end of Executive Court DEVELOPER: John Flake FTTWK REALTY 425 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 376-8005 AREA: 3 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: ZONING• C-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 VARIANCES RE IIESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: ENGINEER: THOMAS ENGINEERING CO. 3810 Lookout Rd. North Little Rock, AR 72116 753-4463 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: General Offices The applicant proposes to develop a 3 -acre lot for general office use. The proposal is for an initial phase involving construction of a 2 -story, 31,000 square foot building and parking for 172 vehicles. Phase two involves the addition of 10,000 square feet to the building, and 49 parking spaces. No variances are proposed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission of the proposed site plan is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant, but is wooded. It has frontage on both Corporate Hill Dr. and Executive Court. The existing zoning is 0-2, with 0-2 zoned property to the east and west. Abutting the site to the south and north is 0-3 zoned property. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works cites the following major requirements which are deficient: 1) a sidewalk will be required on both culs- January 10, 1995 SUBDIVISIQN ITEM NO.: 4 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5141-A de -sac frontages; 2) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, will be required; the plan which was submitted does not meet these requirements; 3) stormwater detention and boundary survey information will be required; and, 5) the first four parking spaces on the Executive Court driveway must be removed. Water Works reports that, in addition to the normal charges, a pro -rata front footage charge of $12 per foot for frontage on Corporate Hill Dr. and an acreage charge of $150 per acre applies. On site fire protection may be required. Wastewater notes that sewer is available from Executive Court. Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department comments that regulation "No Parking. Tow Away" signs are to be placed throughout the site in fire lanes. Landscape review notes that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet Ordinance requirements. D. ISSUE MEGALITECHNICALIDESIGN: Section 36-126 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the site plan review process shall apply to all applications for the 0-2 zoning district. Site Plan review by the Commission was required because the site is in an 0-2 district. The site on which the development is proposed is made up of portions of lots from two subdivisions, Corporate Hill Subdivision and Ensco Parkhill Addition. A revised Final Plat of the lot, meeting all requirements of Public Works, must be provided. ' Section 36-502 requires, for buildings up to 10,000 square feet, 1 parking space for each 400 square feet for office uses to be provided. For building areas of 10,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet, 95% of the basic requirement is to be provided. For building areas of 20,001 square feet to 30,000 square feet, 90% of the basic requirement is to be provided. For building areas of 30,001 square feet to 2 January 10, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z -5141-A 30,000 square feet, 90% of the basic requirement is to be provided. For building areas of 30,001 square feet to 40,000 square feet, 85% of the basic requirement is to be provided. The proposed 30,000 square foot building will be required to provide 92 spaces; the 10,000 square foot addition would be required to add 21 spaces. The proposed site plan provides 172 parking spaces in the phase 1 development, plus another 49 spaces when the 10,000 square foot addition is constructed. E. ANALYSIS: There are only minor deficiencies or changes in the plan which must be made, and the proposed site plan meets the requirements for landscaping, parking, etc. The developer must eliminate those parking spaces at the Executive Court access point so that cars maneuvering into or out of the spaces will not conflict with traffic entering the site. A revised and corrected final plat will be required. There are some engineering requirements for storm drainage and grading which must be complied with. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 1994) No one was present to represent the applicant. Staff reviewed the proposed development with the Subdivision Committee members, and discussed the deficiencies noted in the discussion outline. The Committee voiced a concern that no one was present to represent the developer, and discussed whether the item should be deferred so that the developer could present his application to the Subdivision Committee. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing, but expressed the opinion that applicants should be required to present their developments to the Subdivision Committee. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995) Staff reported that all issues had bden resolved, and recommended approval of the site plan, subject to the required amended final plat being submitted and filed. The site plan was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 3 January 10, 1995 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE Na_: Z -5141-A NAME: CORE SOURCE -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: At the west end of Corporate Hill Dr. and the east end of Executive Court DEVELOPER• John Flake ENGINEER: FTTWR REALTY THOMAS ENGINEERING CO. 425 W. Capitol Ave. 3810 Lookout Rd. Little Rock, AR 72201 North Little Rock, AR 72116 376-8005 753-4463 AREA: 3 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-2 PROPOSED USES: General Offices PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to develop a 3 -acre lot for general office use. The proposal is for an initial phase involving construction of a 2 -story, 31,000 square foot building and parking for 172 vehicles. Phase two involves the addition of 10,000 square feet to the building, and 49 parking spaces. No variances are proposed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission of the proposed site plan is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant, but is wooded. It has frontage on both Corporate Hill Dr. and Executive Court. The existing zoning is 0-2, with 0-2 zoned property to the east and west. Abutting the site to the south and north is 0-3 zoned property. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works cites the following major requirements which are deficient: 1) a sidewalk will be required on both culs- January 10, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4(Cont.)FILE NO.; Z -5141-A de -sac frontages; 2) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, will be required; the plan which was submitted does not meet these requirements; 3) stormwater detention and boundary survey information will be required; and, 5) the first four parking spaces on the Executive Court driveway must be removed. Water Works reports that, in addition to the normal charges, a pro -rata front footage charge of $12 per foot for frontage on Corporate Hill Dr. and an acreage charge of $150 per acre applies. On site fire protection may be required. Wastewater notes that sewer is available from Executive Court. Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department comments that regulation "No Parking. Tow Away" signs are to be placed throughout the site in fire lanes. Landscape review notes that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet Ordinance requirements. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Section 36-126 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the site plan review process shall apply to all applications for the 0-2 zoning district. Site Plan review by the Commission was required because the site is in an 0-2 district. The site on which the development is proposed is made up of portions of lots from two subdivisions, Corporate Hill Subdivision and Ensco Parkhill Addition. A revised Final Plat of the lot, meeting all requirements of Public Works, must be provided. ' Section 36-502 requires, for buildings up to 10,000 square feet, 1 parking space for each 400 square feet for office uses to be provided. For building areas of 10,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet, 95% of the basic requirement is to be provided. For building areas of 20,001 square feet to 30,000 square feet, 90% of the basic requirement is to be provided. For building areas of 30,001 square feet to K January 10, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z -5141-A 30,000 square feet, 90% of the basic requirement is to be provided. For building areas of 30,001 square feet to 40,000 square feet, 85% of the basic requirement is to be provided. The proposed 30,000 square foot building will be required to provide 92 spaces; the 10,000 square foot addition would be required to add 21 spaces. The proposed site plan provides 172 parking spaces in the phase 1 development, plus another 49 spaces when the 10,000 square foot addition is constructed. E. ANALYSIS: There are only minor deficiencies or changes in the plan which must be made, and the proposed site plan meets the requirements for landscaping, parking, etc. The developer must eliminate those parking spaces at the Executive Court access point so that cars maneuvering into or out of the spaces will not conflict with traffic entering the site. A revised and corrected final plat will be required. There are some engineering requirements for storm drainage and grading which must be complied with. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 1994) No one was present to represent the applicant. Staff reviewed the proposed development with the Subdivision Committee members, and discussed the deficiencies noted in the discussion outline. The Committee voiced a concern that no one was present to represent the developer, and discussed whether the item should be deferred so that the developer could present his application to the Subdivision Committee. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing, but expressed the opinion that applicants should be required to present their developments to the Subdivision Committee. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995) Staff reported that all issues had been resolved, and recommended approval of the site plan, subject to the required amended final plat being submitted and filed. The site plan was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. q