Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0923 Staff AnalysisMay 7, 1991 ITEM NO. 3 FILE NO: S-923 NAME: Cantrell Centre Addition - Preliminary Plat LOCATION: SW Corner of Cantrell Road and North Street DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• CHOO CHOO PARTNERSHIP WHITE-DATERS AND ASSOCIATES 401 West Capitol 401 Victory Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203 374-1666 376-8005 AREA: 37.6 Ac. NUMBER OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW STREET: 130 ZONING: I-3 PROPOSED USES: Office and Office Warehouse PLANNING DISTRICT: Downtown - 5 CENSUS TRACT• 15 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1.) Waiver of improvements to North Street. A. PROPOSAW REQUEST: This owner proposes the subdivision of an existing tract zoned I-3 into 10 lots for office and warehouse use. All the lots would be serviced by a number of public access easements connected to main entrance from Cantrell Road. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This site currently is undeveloped and covered with the natural foliage of the area. There are no structures. The south and west boundaries of this property are bordered by a railroad track. , C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Dedication of the Master Street Plan Right-of-way (55' from c/1) and the widening of Cantrell to provide a continuous center left turn lane on the Cantrell frontage is: required. The proposed waiver of improvements to North Street is not supported by Engineering. The applicant should indicate the reason for a possible extension of the private roads to the south, across the railroad tracks. 1 May 7, 1991 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (CONT. The modification of the existing floodway will require a hydraulic computer modelling study, which is subject to the technical approval of the Corps of Engineers. This study must be performed by the applicant, in a form acceptable to the City and the Corps. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation ordinances apply. D. ISSUESfLEGALjTECHNICALIDESIGN: There are a number of items of plat content that the staff requests be resolved by the developer. These are as follows: 1. Identify those areas to be devoted to landscaping. 2. Plat "no access easement" along Cantrell and North Street. 3. The common access drives should be dealt with in the Bill of Assurance. 4. Show the location of the head on parking and prohibit at least 50% from double loading parking. 5. Increase building lines to 65' from property line. 6. Provide phasing plan if you wish to final plat one lot at the time. 7. Note on the plat that access easements are forever private streets. E. ANALYSIS• The planning staff view of this plat is that it is probably the best design which can be gained, given the difficult circumstances of this parcel. There are many issues pointed out above to resolve in the approval and development of this property. However, the Planning staff does not view any of these as being insurmountable. As to the waiver which is requested we offer the following: The boundary street improvement waiver on North Street along east and north side of the plat should be denied. The Staff feels that one half of the existing street needs to be improved to meet minimum city standards as required by the Subdivision Ordinance even so no access is proposed from this property to North Street. F4 f May*7, 1991 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 CONT. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the resolution of the various issues pointed out by the engineering and planning staff. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT (APRIL 25, 1991) Mr. Tim Daters was present representing the application. Mr. Daters described the preliminary plat and various' elements of the proposal. He indicated that some of the Staff's concerns have been already resolved. The only remaining items for discussion were the minor plat and Bill of Assurance details pointed out by Staff. Mr. Daters indicated he would follow through on those items. The discussion then moved to the street improvements issues pointed out by Engineering and Traffic department. Mr. Jerry Gardner from Public Works stated that an additional lane along Cantrell Road would be required. He also pointed out that improvements for half of North Street should be required. As a last item, the Staff pointed out that the property owner, lying immediately west, objects to moving the railroad to the proposed new location. Mr. Dater promised to contact Mr. Roger Mears to reach an agreement before the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 7, 1991) The Planning Staff presented the application and offered the staff recommendation. Mr. Jerry Gardner then offered an overview of the improvements and the effects of those improvements on the adjacent properties laying east. Mr. Joe White, the engineer, was present. He presented the application offering the changes that had been made. He also discussed the improvements and indicated that the developer agreed to withdraw waiver of North Street improvements which will defer it until property lying east develops. He also agreed to place in -lieu contribution for North Street improvements. He added that the railroad will be moved to the new location but still remain in the old railroad right-of-way. 3 May 7, 1991 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (CONT. Mr. Ron Tabor, the applicant, presented the landscape plan for Cantrell and stated that internal landscape will be in accordance with the present ordinance. Mr. Jim Lawson, Planning Director, requested placement of the staff member on the Architectural Review Committee to assure quality development. The question of objection and whether there were objectors in attendance was addressed. There was a person present representing Mr. Roger Mears. Mr. Williams objected to moving the railroad to the new location since his client's property was zoned for 102 apartment units. Jerry Gardner from Public Works stated that the same railroad runs in the front of Vantage Point Apartment complex along Rebsamen Park Road. The discussion then moved to the North Street improvement assurance letter. It was determined that the applicant will draft the letter for review by Mr. Frank Whitbeck, property owner east from subject plat, and Public Works to assure time of the improvements and the applicant also place money in -lieu for improvements. A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat with a condition that the letter of improvements be accepted by Mr. Frank Whitbeck and Public Works and Choo Choo Partnership will place a Planning Staff member on the Architectural Review Committee. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstain, 3 absent and one open position. 4 March 9, 1993 ITEM N is FILE N - 2 NAME: Cantrell Centre Addition - Preliminary Plat Time Extension LOCATION: SW Corner of Cantrell Road and North Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: CHOO CHOO PARTNERSHIP WHITE-DATERS AND ASSOCIATES 401 West Capitol 401 Victory Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203 374-1666 376-8005 REQUEST: This owner files this request asking for a one-year time extension on the preliminary plat approval. The application was originally approved by the Planning Commission on May 7, 1991. STAFF COMMENT RECOMMENDATION: Mr. Joe White, the engineer on the project, reports that over the past nearly 2 years, several thousand cubic yards of fill have been spread over the site in preparation for development work. Also, during this time, there has been engineering work to determine the needed realignment of the railroad and of existing utilities and drainage structures. Now, he reports, the developer is ready to commence street and utility construction. Because there has been ongoing work during the interim between approval and this request, the staff recommends that the preliminary plat approval be deemed to have remained valid and that the time extension be granted. $UBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 18, 1993) The request for the time extension was presented to the Committee. The Committee concurred that the request should be forwarded to the Planning Commission for approval. PLANNING COMMIS IO ACTION: (MARCH 9, 1993) This item was recommended for inclusion in the Consent Agenda for approval. When asked by the Chairman is any one present at the hearing who was opposed to any item on the Consent Agenda, no one responded. In its approval of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved with 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.