Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0294 Staff AnalysisJanuary 11, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - File No. 294 NAME: LOCATTON e DEVELOPER: Birch -Brook, Inc. P.O. Box 7'00 Little Roc , AR AGENT: Gene Lewis Rector, Phillips, Morse Little Rock, AR Brookwood Office Addition Site Plan Review and Building Line Waiver On Brookwood Drive, approximately 1,000' north of Cedar Hill Road. ENGINEER: Edward G. Smith & Associates 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR AREA: 3,736 square feet NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "I-2" Industrial PROPOSED USES: Office STAFF REPORT: A. EXISTING CONDITIONS This site contains seven buildings, which are mostly storage structures of the mini -warehouse type. The area abutting is generally -undeveloped to the south and east, with a large office building across Brookwood Drive at the corner of Cedar Hill Road. The terrain is flat and platted as an office, commercial, residential subdivision. There are no problems apparent on the site. B. EXISTING PYBLIC-FACIT,jITIES AND SERVICES These items appear to be in place by virtue of the prior platting and development in the area. C. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The owner proposes to erect a single new building on this tract, with 14 parking spaces. The building will contain approximately 3700 square feet of usable floor space. This structure would be all masonry and as suggested to Staff would be a speculative building in nature. It is designed for a single tenant and not more than two. The owner suggests that the design January 11, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued that is offered is the only method for locating a building of suitable size on this property. He suggests this is due to a mortgage arrangement internal to the existing development. D. CONFORMANCE TO ORDINANCE STANDARDS The only design element out of conformance is the setback on the north. At the time of platting this development, the ordinance required a 30' platted setback. This has now been reduced in the Zoning Ordinance to 15' for "I-2" zoning areas. The proposed building will be 10' from the side property line on the north, thereby requiring a variance of the building line. There is some question in this area of site plan review concerning the ability of the Planning Commission to vary a bulk or area requirement. In this instance, the applicant has taken steps to deal with this issue as a Board of Adjustment matter also. E. ; ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS No comments. F. ANALYSIS The plan and variance presented do not in themselves present serious question or controversy. The issue that is of importance is whether this variance is a trend setter for "I-2" properties with mixed uses. We feel that, inasmuch as the site is not developed as industrial totally, that the effect on the neighborhood is lessened somewhat. However, in this instance it is obvious that a building of speculative nature has more capacity for modification than a structure that is committed to a use. We would point out that if this office were in the "0-3" District, it would be required a 10' side yard. In this instance, however, it is in an "I-2" zone, whereby the existing office building on the north was apparently required to'provide 30' of setback. Although it is quite obvious that the area is developing as office use rather than industrial, we feel that a 10' side yard standard at this point would be inappropriate. We do feel that the building proposed could provide the required parking and drive areas within the confines of the existing development utilizing a 15' setback. January 11, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the application for a variance to a 10' side yard be denied, and that a 15' platted building line be placed on the replat in lieu of the existing 30' building line. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Approved as filed, but in the area of the new structure only and 125' west of the northeast corner. The vote - 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstaining (Bill Rector). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Gene Gene Lewis represented the applicant. There were no objectors. A motion in agreement with the Subdivision Committee's recommendation of approval was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstention* and 1 open position. *Abstaining Commissioner Rector.