HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5310 Staff AnalysisJune 5, 1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-5310
NAME: Flower Shop - Short Form PCD
LOCATION: Fair Park Blvd. and Maryland Street - SW Corner
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
The Willis Group, Inc. White-Daters & Assoc., Inc.
3817 W. 8th Street 401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72204 Little Rock, AR 72201
664-2125
AREA: 0.3 Acre NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: R-3 PROPOSED USES: PCD/Flower Shop
PLANNING DISTRICT: 9 I-630
CENSUS TRACT• 18
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The owner of the property on 9th and Fairpark Boulevard is
seeking to rezone property as a Planned Commercial
Development. The 1/2 acre tract has 138 foot frontage on
Fairpark Boulevard and single store residential structure in
the middle of the tract. The property has been currently
zoned 0-1.
The purpose of the request is to permit the use of the
property by Flower Shop with a total of 6300 s.f. The
approximate 2100 s.f. will be utilized for retail and sale.
Rest of the space will be used for work and storage space.
The majority of the business will be done by telephone
orders and delivery.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
This application involves a 0.5 acre tract of land
which is proposed for use as a retail sales outlet for
flowers and flower arrangements.
1
June 5, 1990
SUBDIVISION
s
ITEM NO.: A Continued
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site consists of one vacant residential building.
The boundary streets along the east and north side are
already in place.
C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Fair Park Blvd. requires 1/2 of 51' pavement with curbs
and gutters, sidewalks and buried drainage in 1/2 of
80' R/W (modified minor arterial). Maryland Avenue
requires 1/2 of 27' pavement with curbs and gutters,
sidewalks and buried drainage.
D. ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN:
There are several issues to be introduced. These are
as follows:
1. The development as proposed does not deal with the
adjacent residential property lying to the west
and south in such a fashion as to buffer the
effects of the large building against a small "R-
3" single family homes.
2. The structure should be designed as a flat -roof
type so as to reduce the total visible elevation
of the building from the west.
3. Handicap ramps and one parking space should be
shown on the site plan.
E. ANALYSIS•
The staff -view of this proposal is that the project
requires redesign due to its impact on the adjacent
residential properties to the west. There are a number
of homes that rear upon this property. It is our
feeling that a buffering action should occur adjacent
to the rear property line of those homes.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval subject to compliance with
Engineering and Planning Staff comments.
2
June 5, 1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No. A Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 12, 1990)
Mr. Willis was present representing this PCD. Jerry Gardner
explained to Mr. Willis all street improvement requirements
for this project. Mr. Willis indicated that the Staff
recommendations presented no serious problem.
The discussion then moved to the parking lot requirements
and design of curb cuts. The staff indicated that parking
spaces need to be redesigned and drawn in scale in order to
estimate the number of possible parking spaces.
The only remaining items for discussion were the building
set backs and keeping the structure with a residential
appearance design instead flat roof structure.
It was determined that the building will have no openings on
the south and west side and be residential looking in
appearance from the outside.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 24, 1990)
The staff told the Commission that the PCD needed to be
defered to May 8, 1990 agenda because of lack of appropriate
site plans. A motion was made to defer this application for
2 weeks. A motion was passed by vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2
absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 8, 1990)
The applicant was not present. The Planning Staff reported
that the application needs to be deferred to additional 4
weeks to allow for adequate time to receive and review the
revised site plan. The Commission determined it appropriate
to place on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended
by the Staff. A motion to that effect was made and passed
by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
3
June 5, 1990
SUBDIVISION
TTFM NO.:A (Continued)
There being no further discussion, the matter was forwarded
to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 5, 1990)
The Planning Commission briefly discussed this PCD. The
Staff stated that they had received a revised site plan and
also front elevation drawing which meets all City
requirements. The Planning Staff recommended approval of
the revised site plan and suggested that the item be placed
on the consent agenda for approval.
The Commission determined it appropriate to place this item
on the consent agenda. A motion to that effect was made and
passed -by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
4