The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZ-6051-D Staff AnalysisJanuary 21, 1999 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z -6051-D NAME: Arkansas Systems (Lot 7) - Zoning Site Plan Review LOCATION: East side of Technology Drive, just north of Chenal Parkway DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Barnes, Quinn, Flake & White-Daters and Assoc. Anderson, Inc. 401 S. Victory St. First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 1.88 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: 0-2 ALLOWED USES: Office PROPOSED USE: Bank and Offices VARIANCES WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. Variance for reduced rear yard setback (25 foot setback required, 22 foot setback proposed). 2. Variance from the required minimum driveway spacing. A. PROPOSAL RE UEST: The applicant proposes to construct a 13,995 square foot building on Lot 7, Arkansas Systems Office Park. The property is zoned 0-2 and requires a site plan review for any development. A total of 9,395 square feet of the proposed building will be used for general office space and 4,600 square feet will be a branch bank facility with drive- thru. A total of 68 parking spaces is proposed to serve the office development. Three access points from Technology Drive are proposed, with the southernmost drive being a right -in only to serve the branch bank drive-thru facility. The applicant is proposing landscape and buffer areas which conform to ordinance standards. One ground -mounted sign is proposed near the southwest corner of the property which will conform to the Zoning Ordinance standards for office zoning (maximum height - 6 feet, maximum area 64 square feet, minimum setback from property line - 5 feet). January 21, 1999 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6051-D B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Lot 7, Arkansas Systems is undeveloped and partially wooded. There is an office/commercial building being constructed to the west, across Technology Drive. A new post office facility is located immediately north of the site, with the Acxiom office building currently under construction just further north. A proposed daycare site is located to the east (item #8 on this agenda), with two (2) cellular monopoles just southeast of this property. The property immediately south of this site is undeveloped and zoned C-3. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received no comments from the property owners in this general area. There was no established neighborhood association in this general area to notify. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 2. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Existing topographic information at maximum five foot contour interval 100 year base flood elevation is required. 6. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186(e) is required. 7. A Grading Permit per Sec. 29-186(c) and (d) is required. 8. Public Works supports the driveway locations as shown on the revised site plan. The applicant will need to submit a revised preliminary plat after Planning Commission approval showing the new driveway locations. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. AP&L: No Comment received. ARRLA: No Comment received. Southwestern Bell: A 5 foot easement is requested along the north, south and east property lines. Water: The L. R. Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional fire protection will be required. Contact the Water Works regarding meter size and location. 2 January 21, 1999 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6051-D Fire Department: No Comment. County Planning: No Comment received. LATA: No Comment received. F. ISSUES TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No Comment. Landscape Issues: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements with the exception of the lack of building landscaping. The Landscape Ordinance calls for a 3 foot wide landscape strip between the public parking areas and building. There is considerable flexibility in this area but at least one- third of the requirement must be satisfied. Prior to a building permit being issued, a detailed landscape plan must be approved by the Plans Review Specialist. G. ANALYSIS• The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on January 6, 1999. The revised plan addresses the concerns as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee. The revised plan shows the dumpster location as requested by staff, and provides for building landscaping. The revised plan also shows the driveway locations as noted in paragraph A. Public Works has worked with the applicant and supports the proposed driveway locations. The original preliminary plat for this property showed only one driveway location. If this site plan is approved with the additional driveway locations, the preliminary plat will need to be revised (staff -level). The ordinance would typically require 39 parking spaces for this proposed building. The site plan shows a total of 68 parking spaces. The 1.88 acre site will easily accommodate the number of proposed parking spaces without intruding into any of the required landscaped or buffer areas. The revised site plan conforms to ordinance building setback requirements with the exception of the rear yard setback. The ordinance requires a minimum 25 foot rear yard setback. The proposed building drops below the 25 foot setback at one 3 January 21, 1999 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6051-D point (22 feet). The applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement. Staff supports the variance as requested. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the ordinance required minimum driveway spacing standards. The ordinance typically requires that driveways be separated by 300 feet. The proposed driveway spacing ranges from 120 feet to 180 feet. As noted previously, Public Works has worked with the applicant regarding the spacing of the driveways and supports the variance as requested. Otherwise, to staffs knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed site plan. The proposed office development should have no adverse effect on the surrounding property. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. 2. Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away from adjacent property. 3. A revised preliminary plat showing the new driveway locations must be submitted to staff. 4. Staff recommends approval of the variance for reduced rear yard setback. 5. Staff also recommends approval of the variance from the required minimum driveway spacing. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 30, 1998) Joe White and Dickson Flake were present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the site plan. Staff noted that the applicant had worked out the driveway locations and spacing with the Public Works department. Staff explained that when the Planning Commission approves the site plan with the driveway locations as proposed, a revised preliminary plat showing the new driveway locations must be submitted to staff in order to update the preliminary plat file. Mr. Flake noted that a dumpster location had been determined and would be shown on a revised site plan. The variance for reduced rear yard setback and the variance from the required minimum driveway spacing were briefly discussed. Staff noted that the variance for reduced rear yard setback was Cl January 21, 1999 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.• 7 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6051-D very minor in nature, with the rear yard setback dropping 3 feet below the required 25 foot minimum setback only at one point. Bob Brown, Site Plan Review Specialist, noted that some building landscaping would be required. The applicants indicated that there would be no problem complying with this requirement. There being no further issues for discussion, the Committee forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 21, 1999) Staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. 5