Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0507 Staff Analysisb. Zoning and Land Use, Areas and Density C. Proposed Covenants, Bill of Assurance, etc. d. Provision for Master Plans e. Right-of-way Issues C. Engineering Considerations D. Analysis 1. Configuration and Design �A`� 2. Provision of Public Services q'Vs���`'7trv~� 3. Standards of Quality Design , Dh 4. Effects on Environs 5. Orderly Sequence of Growth E. Staff Recommendation F. Subdivision Committee Recommendation February 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - File No. 308 NAME: LOCATION: Tom Allen 18 Inverness Circle Little Rock, AR Phone: 225-6566 TD/'vTMVf'MV . Andrew Hicks Phone: 664-1636 West Markham Office Preliminary/Site Plan Review 10014 West Markham AGENT: Howard Ankins Phone: 225-6566 AREA: 36,000 sq. ft. NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "0-3" PROPOSED USES: Office Building (Condominiums) STAFF REPORT A. EXISTING CONDITIONS B. (1) Physical Conditions: The site is flat and has an existing frame house. It is bordered on the south by Markham Street, the north by single family homes, the east by a veterninary clinic (under construction) and on the west by offices. (2) Existing Facilities Improvements are in place. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (1) Project Characteristics: No. of Gross a. Building Floors Sq. Ft. A Two -Story 4,200 sq. ft. B Two -Story 4,200 sq. ft. C Two -Story 4,200 sq. ft. February 15, 1983' SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continued b. Parking . . 1 Car/400 sq. ft. = 46 spaces C. Total Bldg . . 17.5% d. Condominium Type Dev. on 36,000 sq. ft. e. Phase I includes the northernmost building, drives and parking to begin as early as March 1, 1983, and Phase II . . . Two buildings facing West Markham'mid-summer, 1983. (2) Variances: One variance has been requested. The applicant would like to have an 8' side yard on the east and west sides of the property in lieu of the required 10'. He has stated that 4' gained would not be used for additional buildings, but would be added to the drives entering the development, enlarging it from 20' to 24'. It would serve as an improved ingress and egress which would benefit development and the public better. (3) Legal Considerations: The applicant has proposed a condominium type development to be recorded on the property. This will create three separate estates, one for each building; which will exist within the common estate of the land. The deed will be shared by all three individual estate owners. The development will be tied together by common parking and drives, similar building design and professional landscaping. The Bill of Assurance should reflect this. C. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS We are requiring that the applicant omit the first pair of parking stalls adjacent to front property line, and suggesting that he omit next pair of stalls on the north. D. ANALYSIS Staff does not have major objections to the proposal, we concur with Engineering on the elimination of the parking stalls since this may create a problem entering from Markham. The single family area to the north should be protected by a designated 40' buffer and 6' February 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continged fence; and the Bill of Assurance should reflect the legal aspects of this condominium development. The applicant should provide more justification for the requested variance. E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. F. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The applicant reported that the variance was requested so as to provide more room internally for the drive. A motion was made to approve the site plan and variance, subject to: (1) Designation of a 40' buffer zone and 6' fence on the plan; and (2) Required elimination of two parking spaces, with the option to eliminate two more if needed. A motion was made and passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to approve the site plan and variance, subject to the submission of a plan designating a 40' buffer zone and a 6' fence and the eliminating of the four parking spaces adjacent to Markham. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.