HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0405 Staff AnalysisSeptember 11, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME:
Jim Jamison Pest Control
Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Hendrix
and University
T%LIT 7 V T nT%V rl. VMn TA VVn.
H.M. "Jim" Jamison Robert Hood
100 S. University Con -Ark Builders
Room 410 P.O. Box 127
Little Rock, AR 72205 Conway, AR 72032
Phone: 663-6357 Phone: 376-1371
AREA: .23 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: 11C-3"
PROPOSED USES: Pest Control Offices/Retail
A. Site History
A previous court case required site plan review of this
property.
B . Proposal
1. The construction of a building on .23 acre for use
mainly as offices for the hadquarters of a pest
control company. There will be some retail sales
of prepackaged products.
2. Development Scheme:
Proposed Bldg. ....... 2,875 sq. ft.
Parking ............... 8 spaces
3. Vacation of 5' utility easement on the north.
C. Engineering Comments
1. Widen University one lane adjacent to this
property.
2. Internal parking arrangements do not meet City
standards.
September 11, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
D. Analysis
The applicant has not complied with staff's request for
a proper site indicating changes in the proposal. This
must be done before approval is granted. Since there
has been a related court action due to a Bill of
Assurance, staff requests that the Subdivision
Committee consider requiring the applicant to notify
adjacent property owners. A replat will also need to
be filed for the vacation of the 5' easement. Letters
from the utility companies approving the vacation have
been submitted. To accommodate in the back, staff
favors revising the plan so that there is a 15'
setback. Plans for landscaping/screening should be
indicated.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed by the Commission. The site was
determined to have severe constraints relative to building
size and parking. Staff was willing to support a waiver of
the front yard setback to ease the problem. Engineering
reported that the applicant would need to construct an
additional lane on University. The applicant was advised to
have a meeting with staff and his architect.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. He
submitted a revised plan that resolved the problems. A
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.