Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0392 Staff Analysiss December 14, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER Holiday Inn West - Site Plan Review Shackleford at Markham ENGINEER: Safari Group Mehlburger, Tanner, Renshaw c/o Wright, Lindsey & 201 S. Izard Jennings Little Rock, AR 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. Phone: 375-5331 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 371-0808 AREA: 5.5 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "C-2" PROPOSED USES: Hotel REQUEST: Site plan review of a "C-2" zoning district for use as a hotel. STAFF REPORT: This is a request by Mr. Don Chambers of Mehlburger, Tanner, and Renshaw for site plan approval of the property for development of a Holiday Inn. Due to the involvement of an out-of-state firm, the applicant was not able to submit a properly dimensioned site plan with the usual specifics clearly indicated. Because of the need for Commission approval in order that financing could be received, staff decided to review this general type site plan; which theoretically gives some indication of the proposed use of the property, layout, of buildings, and location of access drives and curb cuts. In no way does this mean that the applicant is exempt from the necessary requirements. When the specific data is received, he is required to submit a revised plan that conforms to submission requirements detailed in Section 4-103.E of the Zoning Ordinance and those relative to "C-2" Shopping Center Zoning District which are in Section 7-103.2. 4 December 14, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued Upon reviewing the plan, the only problem of significance found related to access. The involvement of four lots with three separate uses and the nature of the surrounding thoroughfares necessitates a redesign of what has been presented. Several facts are involved. One, that Shackleford Road has a median which extends the extire length of Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2, which prohibits the location of drives on Markham. The Subdivision Ordinance also prohibits a commercial/office subdivision from providing a curb cut within 100' of an intersection and no closer than 300' apart. Therefore, staff is requesting that the driveway indicated be shifted northward to enable it to serve as the principle means of access for both the commercial and the hotel sites, and that a one-way or "right turn only" drive be provided toward the southern end of the property. The internal driveway system should be re -oriented to accommodate these changes. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: (a) Access to portions of Shackleford and Markham are subject to Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. (b) Specific design of driveways subject to City Engineer's approval. (c) Request clarification of access on Markham Street. (d) Request concept for access of future office and commercial areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of general site plan subject to Engineering comments and limitation of access drives to the two points discussed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The applicant submitted a revised plan with two variances. One requested a waiver of a 40' buffer and this involved a request to permit a 70' high building which is 30' higher than the zone allows. Staff informed the applicant that bulk and area requirements could not be waived through the site plan review process, so he would have to take the request to the Board of Adjustment. A motion was made for approval in concept of the plan and buffer waiver. The vote was 3 ayes, 0 noes, 2 positions open. f December 14, 1982 I SUBDIVISIONS a Item No. 5 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. After a brief discussion of the proposal, the Commission voted to approve the request as recommended by the Subdivision Committee. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. December 14, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER Holiday Inn West - Site Plan Review Shackleford at Markham ENGINEER: Safari Group Mehlburger, Tanner, Renshaw c/o Wright, Lindsey & 201 S. Izard Jennings Little Rock, AR 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. Phone: 375-5331 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 371-0808 AREA: 5.5 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "C-2" PROPOSED USES: Hotel REQUEST: Site plan review of a "C-2" zoning district for use as a hotel. STAFF REPORT: This is a request by Mr. Don Chambers of Mehlburger, Tanner, and Renshaw for site plan approval of the property for development of a Holiday Inn. Due to the involvement of an out-of-state firm, the applicant was not able to submit a properly dimensioned site plan with the usual specifics clearly indicated. Because of the need for Commission approval in order that financing could be received, staff decided to review this general type site plan; which theoretically gives some indication of the proposed use of the property, layout, of buildings, and location of access drives and curb cuts. In no way does this mean that the applicant is exempt from the necessary requirements. When the specific data is received, he is required to submit a revised plan that conforms to submission requirements detailed in Section 4-103.E of the Zoning Ordinance and those relative to "C-2" Shopping Center Zoning District which are in Section 7-103.2. December 14, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued Upon reviewing the plan, the only problem of significance found related to access. The involvement of four lots with three separate uses and the nature of the surrounding thoroughfares necessitates a redesign of what has been presented. Several facts are involved. One, that Shackleford Road has a median which extends the extire length of Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2, which prohibits the location of drives on Markham. The Subdivision Ordinance also prohibits a commercial/office subdivision from providing a curb cut within 100' of an intersection and no closer than 300' apart. Therefore, staff is requesting that the driveway indicated be shifted northward to enable it to serve as the principle means of access for both the commercial and the hotel sites, and that a one-way or "right turn only" drive be provided toward the southern end of the property. The internal driveway system should be re -oriented to accommodate these changes. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: (a) Access to portions of Shackleford and Markham are subject to Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. (b) Specific design of driveways subject to City Engineer's approval. (c) Request clarification of access on Markham Street. (d) Request concept for access of future office and commercial areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of general site plan subject to Engineering comments and limitation of access drives to the two points discussed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The applicant submitted a revised plan with two variances. One requested a waiver of a 40' buffer and this involved a request to permit a 70' high building which is 30' higher than the zone allows. Staff informed the applicant that bulk and area requirements could not be waived through the site plan review process, so he would have to take the request to the Board of Adjustment. A motion was made for approval in concept of the plan and buffer waiver. The vote was 3 ayes, 0 noes, 2 positions open. It December 14, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were,no objectors. After a brief discussion of the proposal, the'Commission voted to approve the request as recommended by the Subdivision Committee. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays,l'l absept and 1 open position. December 14, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER Holiday Inn West - Site Plan Review Shackleford at Markham ENGINEER: Safari Group Mehlburger, Tanner, Renshaw c/o Wright, Lindsey & 201 S. Izard Jennings Little Rock, AR 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. Phone: 375-5331 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 371-0808 AREA: 5.5 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "C-2" PROPOSED USES: Hotel REQUEST: Site plan review of a "C-2" zoning district for use as a hotel. STAFF REPORT: This is a request by Mr. Don Chambers of Mehlburger, Tanner, and Renshaw for site plan approval of the property for development of a Holiday Inn. Due to the involvement of an out-of-state firm, the applicant was not able to submit a properly dimensioned site plan with the usual specifics clearly indicated. Because of the need for Commission approval in order that financing could be received, staff decided to review this general type site plan; which theoretically gives some indication of the proposed use of the property, layout, of buildings, and location of access drives and curb cuts. In no way does this mean that the applicant is exempt from the necessary requirements. When the specific data is received, he is required to submit a revised plan that conforms to submission requirements detailed in Section 4-103.E of the Zoning Ordinance and those relative to "C-2" Shopping Center Zoning District which are in Section 7-103.2. December 14, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued Upon reviewing the plan, the only problem of significance found related to access. The involvement of four lots with three separate uses and the nature of the surrounding thoroughfares necessitates a redesign of what has been presented. Several facts are involved. One, that Shackleford Road has a median which extends the extire length of Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2, which prohibits the location of drives on Markham. The Subdivision Ordinance also prohibits a commercial/office subdivision from providing a curb cut within 100' of an intersection and no closer than 300' apart. Therefore, staff is requesting that the driveway indicated be shifted northward to enable it to serve as the principle means of access for both the commercial and the hotel sites, and that a one-way or "right turn only" drive be provided toward the southern end of the property. The internal driveway system should be re -oriented to accommodate these changes. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: (a) Access to portions of Shackleford and Markham are subject to Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. (b) Specific design of driveways subject to City Engineer's approval. (c) Request clarification of access on'Markham Street. (d) Request concept for access of future office and commercial areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of general site plan subject to Engineering comments and limitation of access drives to the two points discussed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The applicant submitted a revised plan with two variances. One requested a waiver of a 40' buffer and this involved a request to permit a 70' high building which is 30' higher than the zone allows. Staff informed the applicant that bulk and area requirements could not be waived through the site plan review process, so he would have to take the request to the Board of Adjustment. A motion was made for approval in concept of the plan and buffer waiver. The vote was 3 ayes, 0 noes, 2 positions open. December 14, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. After a brief discussion of the proposal, the Commission voted to approve the request as recommended by the Subdivision Committee. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. December 14, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 NAME: LOCATION: T-)PN7F'T (1DL'D Holiday Inn West - Site Plan Review Shackleford at Markham ENGINEER: Safari Group Mehlburger, Tanner, Renshaw c/o Wright, Lindsey & 201 S. Izard Jennings Little Rock, AR 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. Phone: 375-5331 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 371-0808 AREA: 5.5 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "C-2" PROPOSED USES: Hotel REQUEST: Site plan review of a "C-2" zoning district for use as a hotel. STAFF REPORT: This is a request by Mr. Don Chambers of Mehlburger, Tanner, and Renshaw for site plan approval of the property for development of a Holiday Inn. Due to the involvement of an out-of-state firm, the applicant was not able to submit a properly dimensioned site plan with the usual specifics clearly indicated. Because of the need for Commission approval in order that financing could be received, staff decided to review this general type site plan; which theoretically gives some indication of the proposed use of the property, layout, of buildings, and location of access drives and curb cuts. In no way does this mean that the applicant is exempt from the necessary requirements. When the specific data is received, he is required to submit a revised plan that conforms to submission requirements detailed in Section 4-103.E of the Zoning Ordinance and those relative to "C-2" Shopping Center Zoning District which are in Section 7-103.2. December 14, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued Upon reviewing the plan, the only problem of siqnificance found related to access. The involvement of four lots with three separate uses and the nature of the surrounding thoroughfares necessitates a redesign of what has been presented. Several facts are involved. One, that Shackleford Road has a median which extends the extire length of Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2, which prohibits the location of drives on Markham. The Subdivision Ordinance also prohibits a commercial/office subdivision from providing a curb cut within 100' of an intersection and no closer than 300' apart. Therefore, staff is requesting that the driveway indicated be shifted northward to enable it to serve as the principle means of access for both the commercial and the hotel sites, and that a one-way or "right turn only" drive be provided toward the southern end of the property. The internal driveway system should be re -oriented to accommodate these changes. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: (a) Access to portions of Shackleford and Markham are subject to Arkansas Hiqhway and Transportation Department. (b) Specific design of driveways subject to City Engineer's approval. (c) Request clarification of access on Markham Street. (d) Request concept for access of future office and commercial areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of general site plan subject to Engineering comments and limitation of access drives to the two points discussed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The applicant submitted a revised plan with two variances. One requested a waiver of a 40' buffer and this involved a request to permit a 70' high buildinq which is 30' higher than the zone allows. Staff informed the applicant that bulk and area requirements could not be waived through the site plan review process, so he would have to take the request to the Board of Adjustment. A motion was made for approval in concept of the plan and buffer waiver. The vote was 3 ayes, 0 noes, 2 positions open. 4' December 14, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. After a brief discussion of the proposal, the Commission voted to approve the request as recommended by the Subdivision Committee. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position.