Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0323 Staff AnalysisJune 14, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued The applicant has requested that this be considered as a combined preliminary and final. Staff, however, does not feel that this meets the criteria designated in the Ordinance. It specifically states that this type review is to be used for minor subdivisions that: (1) do not create more than four lots, tracts or parcels; (2) tracts not larger than five acres; (3) proposal does not involve dedication of public street or access easement through parcel. Usually a 40' landscaped duffer and 5 ° fence are required between commercial/office subdivisions and areas zoned for residential use. In this instance, a 50' easement with no existing trees is in the area; furthermore; the trees beyond this point have been bulldozed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Since the applicant was not in attendance, the Committee voted to defer this item to the next Commission meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The developer and his engineer were present and offered comments. There were no objectors. After a brief discussion of the issues and the problems yet to be resolved; the Planning Commission determined that a deferral to the May 10, 1983, meeting would be in order. This would be structured to allow Mr. Davis, the engineer, to return to the Subdivision Committee on April 28. The Commission approved a motion to defer the matter by a'vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: A request was received from the applicant for a 30-day deferral. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to defer the item, as requested by the applicant, to the June 14th agenda. June 14, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued e...r\A TffT PT/117 nnuu'r MM0 + DL+117TT'i W. A revised plan was submitted by the applicant. The Committee decided to pass it to the Commission, subject to: (1) Showing Master Street Plan collector through Secluded Hills. (2) Shortening of a cul-de-sac north of Tract "A." (3) Addition of topos to plats. rr �v»Tvn ^^"MV0nY^M UTUTIrP i Q. The applicant was present. The motion was made and passed to approve the plan as revised subject to: (1) Widening of Highway 10 to one-half of a 48-foot arterial with underground drainage. (2) Engineering approval of bridge. It passed by a vote 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. rx" 4, 1983 ;.;DIVISIONS Item No. 1 - File No. 323 NAME: Highway #10 - Commercial Subdivision LOCATION: Approximately 400' west of� —r~�-- Intersection of Black Street and Highway 10 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: J-G Construction Co. Sam Davis Route 5, Box 415B 5301 W. 8th Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72204 Phone: 225-6799 AREA: 20.607 acres NO. OF LOTS: 5 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "C-3," "R-2" i PROPOSED USES: Commercial VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed site is composed of flat ground, a portion of which is in the floodway. Several uses are apparent. Lot 1 consists of a portable concrete batch plant. Lot 3 consists of a larger concrete plant and three metal buildings used for truck maintenance. Lots 2 and 4 consist of 323 mini -warehouses ranging in size from 5' x 11977. 121 Thex251 propertythat have developed since is bordered on~the west by a commercial use, the south by single family zoning and the east by commercial zoning. Isom Creek runs across the property from east to west; and there also is an existing 50' water easement between the single and commercial tracts. Access through the property is provided by what is currently a 60' gravel access easement that extends from Highway 10 southward to Tract A. A concrete bridge exists over a creek that runs from east to nest. Street improvements will be needed along Highway 10. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL This is a proposal by the applicant to subdivide a tract of land of 20.607 acres into four lots for commercial use, and into an acreage tract that is currently zoned for single family. The applicant ,3 g iJUL7j)I V 117Olq J_�7 Item No. 1 - Continued is requesting that this be reviewed as a combination preliminary/final. C, LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS D. None. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS 1. Widen Highway 10 to one-half of a 48' arterial with underground drainage. 2.. Request internal drainage plan to include drainage calculations and certification that concrete !,,ridge is adequate hydraulically and structurally. 3. Ploodway is extensive through the property. The proposed 30' drainage easement does not appear adequate. Show floodway in 100-Year Flood elevation on plat. ANALYSIS The main concerns wits"_ iL.3s proposal revolve around provision of adequate access to the commercial lots and the residential tracts to be developed later, and proper treatment of the floodway area within the site. Staff has considered whether or not the 60' access easement through the site should be a private street or be publicly maintained, :g�. pri-vate street would be acceptable, provided it is built to the City standards f6r commercial. office f?evelopment (36' street) . We are suggesting though that the applicant initially develop Lots 1-4 with the street, but construct a cul-de-sac that would extend to the south side of the water easement when the final to Tract A is done. Also, the applicant has not indicated any floodway information on the plat, and a substantial amount of the site lies in the floodway. Engineering has questioned this, the adequacy of the existing concrete bridge, and a proposed 30' drainage easement. As for technicalities, several basic plat requirements have been omitted, such as building lines (25' in "C-3" areas), vicinity map and preliminary plat certificates, etc. The applicant should contact the staff about resolving these. r,- April 12, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - File No. 323 NAME: Highway #10 - Commercial Subdivision LOCATION: Approximately 400' west of Intersection of Black Street and Highway 10 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: J-G Construction Co. Sam Davis Route 5, Box 415B 5301 W. 8th Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72204 Phone: 225-6799 AREA: 20.607 acres NO. OF LOTS: 5 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "C-3," "R-2 PROPOSED USES: Commercial VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed site is composed of flat ground, a portion of which is in the floodway. Several uses are apparent. Lot 1 consists of a portable concrete batch plant. Lot 3 consists of a larger concrete plant and three metal buildings used for truck maintenance. Lots 2 and 4 consist of 323 mini -warehouses ranging in size from 5' x 10' to 12' x 25' that have been developed since 1977. The property is bordered on the west by a commercial use, the south by single family zoning and the east by commercial zoning. Isom Creek runs across the property from east to west; and there also is an existing 50' water easement between the single and commercial tracts. Access through the property is provided by what is currently a 60' gravel access easement that extends from Highway 10 southward to Tract A. A concrete bridge exists over a creek that runs from east to west. Street improvements will be needed along Highway 10. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL This is a proposal by the applicant to subdivide a tract of land of 20.607 acres into four lots for commercial use, and into an acreage tract that is currently zoned for single family. The applicant April 12, 1983 ' SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued is requesting that this be reviewed as a combination preliminary/final. C. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS None. D. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS 1. Widen Highway 10 to one-half of a 48' arterial with underground drainage. 2. Request internal drainage plan to include drainage calculations and certification that concrete bridge is adequate hydraulically and structurally. 3. Floodway is extensive through the property. The proposed 30' drainage easement does not appear adequate. Show floodway in 100-Year Flood elevation on plat. E. ANALYSIS The main concerns with this proposal revolve around provision of adequate access to the commercial lots and the residential tracts to be developed later, and proper treatment of the floodway area within the site. Staff has considered whether or not the 60' access easement through the site should be a private street or be publicly maintained. A private street would be acceptable, provided it is built to the City standards for commercial office development (36' street). We are suggesting though that the applicant initially develop Lots 1-4 with the street, but construct a cul-de-sac that would extend to the south side of the water easement when the final to Tract A is done. Also, the applicant has not indicated any floodway information on the plat, and a substantial amount of the site lies in the floodway. Engineering has questioned this, the adequacy of the existing concrete bridge, and a proposed 30' drainage easement. As for technicalities, several basic plat requirements have been omitted, such as building lines (25' in "C-3" areas), vicinity map and preliminary plat certificates, etc. The applicant should contact the staff about resolving these. April 12, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued The applicant has requested that this be considered as a combined preliminary and final. Staff, however, does not feel that this meets the criteria designated in the Ordinance. It specifically states that this type review is to be used for minor subdivisions that: (1) do not create more than four lots, tracts or parcels; (2) tracts not larger than five acres; (3) proposal does not involve dedication of public street or access easement through parcel. Usually a 40' landscaped buffer and 6' fence are required between commercial/office subdivisions and areas zoned for residential use. In this instance, a 50' easement with no existing trees is in the area; furthermore; the trees beyond this point have been bulldozed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Since the applicant was not in attendance, the Committee vote to defer this item to the next Commission meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The developer and his engineer were present and offered comments. There were no objectors. After a brief discussion of the issues and the problems yet to be j resolved, the Planning Commission determined that a deferral to the May 10, 1983, meeting would be in order. This would be structured to allow Mr. Davis, the engineer, to return to the Subdivision Committee on April 28. The Commission approved a motion to defer the matter by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays.