Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0248 Staff AnalysisJune 30, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 NAME: Pizza Hut Site Plan Review LOCATION: Broadmoor Shoppinq Center DEVELOPER: AGENT: Marty Cook, National Pizza John Standley Company Summerlin Associates North Little Rock, AR 1609 South Broadway Little Rock, AR Phone: 376-1323 AREA: 5000 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: Commercial PROPOSED USE: Expansion of Shopping Center A. Proposal (1) To construct an additional commercial structure to a shopping center on 10.0 acres. (2) Development Data - Existing parking spaces 367 - Removed under this proposal 64 - Total remaining 313 B. Buildings - Existing building square footage 76,374 - Proposed square footage 3,316 - Total square footage 79.690 C. En neerinq Comments (1) Street improvements on University required; remove triangle on University. June 30, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued (2) Right-of-way dedication of ten feet required and sidewalks. (3) Provide six-foot wide landscaped strip along concrete back of proposed building because it represents a lease line between separate relationships. D. Issues (1) Clarify site plan data - indicate what is included in total square footage. (2) Parking appears deficient. (3) Identify whether the property is one tract or divided into lots. E. Staff Recommendation Reserved until comments addressed. Staff noticed that there are at least three restaurants in this shopping center. This may affect parkinq. Applicant should explain whether the TCBY is part of this site or a separate ownership. Parking must be figured .for each of the separate existing uses. F. Subdivision Committee Review The comments were discussed with the applicant. He agreed to provide more information regarding ownerships of free-standing buildings, size of buildings, the amount of retail versus restaurant use for existing and proposed structures, and the relationship of existing versus proposed parking. Other issues to be resolved included a potential problem with the parking layout since some 90° parkinq spaces appeared to be backing into 600 parking, the placement of signs and landscaping not covered in this approval and the location of the facility for garbage collection on the plan. The applicant agreed to meet with Engineering regarding his request to waive the right-of-way requirement along University because of physical limitations, and on other improvements needed. June 30, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87) The applicant was present. The staff reported that there were no issues. There were no objectors in attendance. The Commission placed this matter on the consent agenda for approval subject to the Traffic Engineer's approval. The motion on the consent agenda passed by a -vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. July 13, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 NAME: LOCATION: Bixler Commercial Subdivision West Markham at I-430 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: West Markham Association Mehlburger, Tanner, Renshaw P.O. Box 1570G 201 S. Izard Nashville, Tenn. 37215 P.O. Box 3837 Phone• 372-1700 Little Rock, AR 72203 AREA: 14.69+ acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. OF NEW ST: 0 ZONING: 110-21," "C-3" and "0-3" PROPOSED USES: Restaurant, Hotel, Offices VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of this site is in an area mainly comprised of commercial and office uses. Most of the land involved is characterized by wooded, gentle slopes. An exception is Lot 1, which has three existing structures: a one-story, brick abandoned restaurant, a small storage -type building and a garage apartment. The site is bounded on the west by I-430, on the south by Markham, a minor arterial, and on the east by Natural Resources Drive (State Highway 846). Grove Street, a 40' unconstructed right-of-way extends through the center of the property, and a footpath leading to a covered pedestrian bridge over the interstate lies on the north. The existing zoning is comprised of several districts, namely 110-2," "C-3" and "O-3." B. DEVELOPMENT -PROPOSAL This application was filed for preliminary plat review of a proposed development of 4 lots on approximately 14.69 acres for commercial/office use. The major point of access will be a 60' public access, drainage, and utility easement, extending from Markham Street. The easement diminishes to 40' in width as it progresses into the project. Other: objectives for the plan are (1) the closing of Grove Street and a 15' street along the north boundary; (2) the submission of the necessary utility, grading and drainage plans to the Arkansas State Health and Highway Departments, in addition July 13, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued to the usual City required agencies. Rezoning applications have been submitted for Lot 1 and portions of Lot 2. C. CONFORMANCE TO THE ORDINANCE No variances have been requested; however, the plats may require minor technical revisions. D. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS None, except submission of BOA and notification to property owners. E. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS No comments. F. ANALYSIS Staff has no major objections to the proposal. However, we are requesting that the applicant finish the paving of the footpath to the pedestrian bridge and provide a 6' chain link fence shielding it from the development, since it is used rather extensively by school children. Wastewater has indicated the need for more information concerning the potential discharge of water from the development before they can approve it. G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, subject to comments. H. SUBDIVISION_COMMITTEE_RECOMMENDATION: A brief discussion was held. Mr. Hathaway pointed out that he was willing to perform the walk and fencing actions, but wanted the record to reflect that his development would receive 10' of the closed right-of-way for use in the site, the remaining 5' to be used as easements for the walk. The Committee voted to recommend the. approval of the plat, subject to comments above being noted in the record. The vote: 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. July 13, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made and passed for approval, subject to the improvement of the pedestrian pathway and the provision of a walk and fence in exchange for the applicant receiving 10' of right-of-way (Park Street) and 5' easement dedication. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. J,i1y 13, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6-A - Z-3812-A owner: A.B. Hogue, Trustee et al. Applicant: Jim Hathaway Location: Northeast Corner West Markham Street at I-430 Request: Rezone from 110-2" Office and Institutional to "C-3" General Commerical Purpose: Commercial Development Size: 2.12 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE ^AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "0-2" South - Office, Zoned "O-2" and "0-3" East - Vacant, Zoned "0-3" and "MF-6" West - I-430 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: This application falls in line with the Bixler Commercial Subdivision plat now under review. Lot 2 is deeper than was originally anticipated and Lot 3 is to be occupied by a motel. Staff supports the expansion of zoning to cover Lot 2, but since motels are permitted as conditional uses in the 110-2" district, staff is not willing to support the expansion to cover Lot 3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "C-3" zoning to cover Lot 2 and denial of the remainder of the "C-3" zoning requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and briefly explained the situation. After considerable discussion, the Commission moved to approve the expansion of "C-3" for Lot 2 and to recommend approval of a conditional use permit on Lot 3 for a motel. The motion passed - 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. July 13, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6-B NAME: LOCATION: TIRVRT.nPER: West Markham Association P.O. Box 1570G Nashville, Tenn. 37215 Phone: 372-1700 ZONING: "0-2 PROPOSED USES: Conditional Use Permit Bixler Commercial Subdivision West Markham at I-430 ENaTNEER: Mehlburger, Tanner, Renshaw 201 S. Izard P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 Coffee,Shop and Hotel with three stories and 138 rooms. VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of this site is an area mainly comprised of commercial and office uses. Most of the land involved is characterized by wooded, gentle slopes. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL This application was filed as a part of a preliminary plat review of a proposed development of four lots on approximately 14.69 acres for commercial/office use. The major point of access will be a 60' public access, drainage, and utility easement, extending from Markham Street. The easement diminishes to 40' in width as it progresses into the project. Other objectives for the plan are: (1) The closing of Grove Street and a 15' street along the north boundary; (2) The submission of the necessary utility, grading and drainage plans to the Arkansas State Health and Highway Departments, in addition to the usual City required agencies. Rezoning applications have been submitted for Lot 1 and portions of Lot 2. C. CONFORMANCE TO THE ORDINANCE: No variances have been requested. July 13, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6-B - Continued D. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: None, except submission of bill of assurance. E. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: No comments. F. ANALYSIS: Staff has no objection to the proposal. Wastewater has indicated the need for more information concerning the potential discharge of water from the development before they can approve it. y. G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. H. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-13-82) The Planning Commission received comment from Mr. Jim Hathaway, agent for the development. A brief discussion of Mr. Hathaway's and staff's comments resulted in an amended zoning approach on this site. The Commission determined that the lot proposed for a motel should be dealt with as a conditional use permit in the present 110-2" zone rather than rezoning to "C-3".' The staff and Commission agreed this could be accomplished by accepting the plan offered by Mr. Hathaway and forwarding that plan with a positive recommendation to the City Board of Directors. It was understood by all; that, since the plan offered was generalized; that, all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance would apply with no variances. The Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent to recommend approval of the conditional use permit.