HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0548-B Staff AnalysisSeptember 19, 1989
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4
FILE NO.: S-565-A
NAME: Candlewood Commercial Subdivision
LOCATION: Cantrell Road and Candlewood Drive
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Flake & Co., Agent White-Daters & Associates, Inc.
P. O. Box 990 401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201
376-8005 374-1666
AREA: 16.7 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:
ZONING: "C-3" PROPOSED USES:
PLANNING DISTRICT: 10
CENSUS TRACT: 42.03
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None
5 FT. NEW STREET: 0
Retail
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
This proposal is a five -lot preliminary plat in support
of Candlewood Commercial Site Plan. The five -lot
proposal consists of a 16.7 acre lot to be utilized as
a commercial location with four freestanding lots.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site currently is undeveloped and covered with the
natural foliage of the area. There are no structures.
Land on the east and west is being used commercially.
C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
A Traffic Impact analysis is required to know if
additional street improvements will be required. The
specifics of information requested within that report
is within Item No. 7 of this agenda. No other concerns
were expressed related to this preliminary plat.
1
September 19, 1989
SUBDIVISION
I_tem._No.. 4 (Continued)
D. ISSUES/ LEGALLIE�CHNICALJ DESIGN:
This preliminary plat, as filed, is in the proper form
for a five -lot preliminary commercial plat. There are
no issues at this time relative to the preliminary
plat. There are issues developed in association with
the site plan application which will generate specific
requirements as to the provision of various signage,
lighting and landscaping plans.
E. ANALYSIS:
Staff's view of this preliminary plat is that it is
appropriate to the development proposal.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approval of this preliminary plat
subject to any modification which may occur as -the
result of the site plan review of Item No. 7 of this
agenda.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE. COMMENT: (September 8, 1989)
The applicant was present. The Subdivision Committee
discussed this item in conjunction with Item #7 on the
agenda. Therefore, the commentary included in their report
on Item #7 applies to this matter.
2
September 19, 1989
SUBDIVISION
Item No. 4 {Continued}_
Mr. Kemp, attorney, was representing Flake and Company. The
applicant expressed his concern over the Highway 10 Plan and
its application to this plat and plan. He requested
deferral for two weeks for both the plat and site plan.
A lengthy discussion of the request followed with comments
from the City Attorney, Commissioners and Mr. Kemp. The
only concern the Commissioners had was what issues would be
discussed in the next two weeks. Mr. Kemp explained that he
will talk to the City Attorney to eliminate legal issues and
concentrate on site plan problems in the next meeting. The
City Attorney also assured the Commissioners that deferring
the plat and site plan for two weeks cannot change the
applicant's request or withdraw the site plan.
Mr. Jones, representing property on Highway 10, suggested a
brief discussion by the Commissioners of all the problems
concerning site plan and plat in order to have a productive
discussion during the two week deferral.
Steve Reed, from the Candlewood and Walton Heights Home
Association, expressed his concern of the traffic issues to
people living off Highway 10.
Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, was pleased to see
aggressive comments from the City staff and Commissioners.
Her concerns are traffic, landscaping and excavation.
Commissioner John Schlereth asked to express his concern
about the site plan to be considered in two weeks. He
listed all ten staff concerns and pointed out in the
analysis on the site plan review. He added his concerns of
the overused "C-3" commercial land. He also quoted the
resolution of the Board of Directors regarding Highway 10
Land Use Plan adopted on February 7, 1989.
"Section 3. says that the Board of Directors
encourages the land owners and developers of
already existing Highway 10 commercial zoned
acreage to develop those properties in a fashion
consistent with the Highway 10 Plan's overall
objective to create a scenic corridor, thereby
avoiding strip commercial development.
Section 6. says "The Planning Commission and the
staff are directed to encourage all pre-existing
zoning to conform to a PUD format", which
obviously includes site plan review.
3
October 3, 1989
SUBDIVISION
I tem No . C (Con_t,_i_nued j_ __
-- And I would like to quote one other thing.
This is an article that appeared in the Arkansas
Ga. .ztt.e. on January 13, 1989 by Leroy Donald where
.......e...........
he announced the shopping center plan for Highway
10 and he quoted John Flake, Board Chairman of
Flake and Company, as saying, "that other sites
had been considered but that the developers were
"committed to preserving the integrity of the
Highway 10 corridor. We felt that this site was
consistent with plans established for that area by
the City".
Also, an article appeared on April 25, 1989 in the
Arkans-as Democrat stating things Iike, e.g.: "We
plan to have extensive landscaping so that the
center would blend in with the natural aspects of
the surrounding neighborhood. We firmly believe
that our center will be consistent with plans
established for this area by the City."
A motion was made to defer this plat and the site plan for
two weeks. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes,
2 absent and 1 abstention.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 3, 1989)
The application was represented by Mr. H. Kemp, attorney;
Mr. Joe White, engineer; and Mr. Rett Tucker from Flake &
Company. Staff recommended approval of the revised
preliminary plat.
Mr. White submitted revised a preliminary plat showing
100 foot building line setbacks, 40 foot landscaped areas
and three outparcels along the Highway 10 frontage.
There was a brief discussion by the Planning Commission
about the proposed design in conjunction with the site plan.
A motion was made to approve the revised preliminary plat in
conjunction with the site plan. The motion passed by a vote
of 9 ayes, es and 2 absent.
4