HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0170-A Staff Analysis{
i
40
August 11, 1981
SUBDIVISIONS
4tp 170-4
Item No. 5 - Pleasant Valley Place Commercial Subdivision
R_eplat/Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Near Intersection of Rodney
Parham and Hidden Valley Drive
AGENT:
DEVELOPER:
Craig Williams and
Gerald Johnson
11520 Rodney Parham Rd.
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 224-3300
AREA: 1.6 Acres +
ZONING: 11C-3"
PROPOSED USES:
Commercial/Office
Al REQUEST:
Ron Carter
011en Dee Wilson
212 South Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 375-7222
NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. OF NEW STREETS: 0
Site plan review for Lot 6-R, as required for multiple
building sites, and the replatting of Lots 6 and 8.
August 11, 1981
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
PROPOSAL:
1. The construction of a two-story building with a total
of 5,984 square feet of floor coverage.
2. The provision of 20 spaces for parking purposes.
3. The proposed structure conforms to bulk and area
requirements as indicated.
Required Provided
Front Yard 25' 40'
Side Yard None Required
Rear Yard 25' 25'
Height 35' 20'
Lot Area 14,000' Min. 34,500' Sq. Ft.
Lot Width 100' Min. Over 100'
USES PROPOSED:
Office.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS:
1. The parking requirement is one space per 400 square
feet of gross floor area; therefore, 15 parking spaces
are required. This portion of the plan complies.
2. A landscaping/screening plan that meets ordinance
requirements should be submitted. The applicant has
indicated his intention to comply with whatever is
required.
RMr_T' VPDTTTf'_ rn?,TCTTIVDA PTf1TTC.
(a) Three parking spaces adjacent to retaining wall appear to
be unusable, and (b) Preliminary layout does not appear to
provide required landscaping space along Rodney Parham on
east side and internal to parking lots.
`4�'
Auaust 11. 1981
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
ANALYSIS:
Staff's initial review of the proposal reveals a potential
for problems with internal traffic circulation, due to the
necessary elimination of three existing parking stalls on
what is now Lot 6. At.the time of this writing, Staff was
inhibited in its investigation of the matter because a site
plan for this lot and the existing building had not yet been
submitted. Both site plans, for this lot and the proposed
Lot 6-R are needed to ensure the overall traffic workability
of the lots and that the elimination of the three spaces
will not effect parking requirements for the existing
building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would like to pass to the Subdivision Committee
without specific recommendation until the site plan has been
submitted.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
kc Approval subject to staff and developer working out details
of drives, parking and landscaping prior to the meeting on
the llth of August. The vote - 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion to approve the application as filed was made and
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.