Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0277 Staff AnalysisNovember 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - File No. 277 NAME: LOCATION: St. Vincent Site Plan Review Markham at St. Vincent's APPLICANT/ENGINEER: Flake & Company Mehlburger, Tanner & Renshaw Commercial National Bldg. 201 South Izard Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR Phone: 376-8005 AREA: 1.92 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: 110-2" REQUEST: Site plan review of a proposed office building in a "0-2" zoning district. 1. The construction of a five -story physician's office building and approximately 1.92 acres. 2. On -going construction of a parking deck. 3. Development according to the following: A. Floor area: 70,000 square feet. B. Building coverage: Office building - .9 percent. Total building coverage (on 39.04 acres) - 22.1 percent C. Parking: Deck (under construction) 970 Office building 30 Office building existing 1,135 .Total 2,135 - November 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: ("0-2" Zoning Districts) 1. Front, side, 'and rear yard setbacks: 25'. Minimum site area 2 acres. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: The City Engineer request no access from development onto Taylor Street due to traffic safety problems at the intersection of West Markham and Taylor Streets. Requests developer submit traffic study to state impact of this development on main entrance to St. Vincent's Hospital at Markham Street. Developer participation in a traffic signal may be required. STAFF ANALYSIS: There are several issues involved with this property. One involve the 15' undeveloped right-of-way or old "paper street" on the eastern edge of the St. Vincent's property. Staff originally thought that this could possibly be abandoned at this time, but now feels that since it serves as a buffer between the hospital and park, closure is not necessary. Another involves an agreement made between St. Vincent's and the City years ago, concerning the location of a drive on park land to provide access to University Avenue. St. Vincent then permitted the City to use an equal amount of land for the golf course. This agreement should be legally finalized. Staff is against a connection of the access drive serving the new office building to Taylor Street; because of the inadequacy of the Taylor/Markham Street intersection, questionable ability of the existing entrance across from Fillmore Street to handle turning movements and possible negative impacts on the City golf course and senior citizens facility of increased traffic volumes on Taylor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. November 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Mr. John Flake,, of Flake and Company, represented the applicant. He requested that the Committee approve the site plan without the Taylor and Markham Street intersection until the impact of further development on the site to be assessed. He was instructed to submit results of the traffic study upon returning to the Committee. A motion was made and passed subject to comments made. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion in agreement with the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention (Ron Tabor abstained.) and 1 open position. J November 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 - File No. 278 NAME: Moseley Building Line Waiver LOCATION: 9400 Loetscher Lane OWNER: ENGINEER: Ira Moseley 011en Dee Wilson 212 S. Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 475-7222 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Modification of an existing 25' platted building line for the addition'of a carport. A. EXISTING CONDITIONS This site is located in what is a residential area composed of single family homes. It is on a lot bordered by Southboro Court and Loetscher Lane on the north and east, and other single family uses on the west and south. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL This is a proposal by the applicant to add a carport which will encroach 25' into an area established by a 25' building setback. C. CONFORMANCE TO ORDINANCE This varies from the Ordinance in the manner stated above. D. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS None, except notification of property owners in subdivision. E. ENGINEERING COMMENTS None. November 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1-4 - Continued F. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff will maintain its usual position relative to requests of this nature. The applicant has not submitted justification enough to warrant modification of the existing building line. G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Denial as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Mrs. Moseley represented her husband. Since it was decided that the construction proposed would be to close to the street, a motion in agreement with staff's recommendation of denial was made and passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not in attendance. There were no objectors. A motion in agreement with the Subdivision Committee's recommendation for denial was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position.