HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0948-1 Staff AnalysisJune 30, 1992
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.:' S-948
NAME: Quality Foods Site Plan (Subdivision)
LOCATION: South side of West 34th at Mary Street
DEVELOPER•
DON KIRKPATRICK
4901 Asher Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72204
568-3141
AREA: 8.57 Ac. NUMBER OF LOTS:
ZONING: I-2 PROPOSED USES:
ENGINEER•
ROBERT J. RICHARDSON
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
664-0003
1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
Night Watchman's Residence
PLANNING DISTRICT: 9 NAME: I-630
CENSUS TRACT• 19
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
This application is a request by Mr. Don Kirkpatrick to
retain a small -frame residence existing on the site. This
residence was occupied by the previous owner prior to
Mr. Kirkpatrick redevelopment in the area. A building
permit was issued for the commercial building now under
construction, with a condition that the house be removed.
Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated he would utilize this residence as
a security guard residence if permitted by the Planning
Commission.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The land area involved in this application is generally
flat. There are no significant drainage or land use
questions in the area. The site is clear except for the
area under construction for a new building and parking
facilities. The small -frame house lies in the northwest
quadrant of the lot, taking direct access to 34th Street.
C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Construct Master Street Plan improvements on West 34th
Street with a right-of-way of 70 feet and the pavement
section will be 36 feet for curbs, gutters and sidewalk.
Detention and Excavation Ordinance will apply.
1
June 30, 1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 Continued FILE NO.: S-948
D. YSSUESILEGALfTECHNICALIDESIGN:
The site plan as submitted presents a complete application.
The issues attendant to this plat are off -site dealing with
the adjacent 34th Street.
E. ANALYSIS•
The staff finds no fault with the layout and design of the
proposal as submitted by Mr. Richardson. There are no
specific issues attendant to the site plan. This is a
conventional two structure multi use site plan, which has
been approved by the Commission on numerous occasions. Due
to the significant involvement in the adjacent blocks by Mr.
Kirkpatrick's development, it is entirely appropriate to
have on -site security. This residence will serve that
purpose quite well.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the subdivision site plan as
submitted subject to the comments of Public Works.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 11, 1992)
Mr. Robert Richardson was in attendance and represented the owner
and the application. Mr. Richardson explained the reason for the
security structure and Mr. Kirkpatrick's attempt to redevelop a
significant part of this neighborhood. Richard Wood of staff
offered the several comments of Planning and Public Works.
The discussion then moved to the requirement for street
improvements and sidewalk. Mr. Richardson indicated that the
building permit issued on the property carried a requirement for
the 36 foot roadway curb and gutter. However, the sidewalk was
not an issue in his estimation. He felt the sidewalk requirement
would be better placed on the north side of 34th Street.
A lengthy discussion followed when the Public Works staff
indicated that the 70 foot right-of-way dimension, indicated in
their previous comments, was for an open ditch section and not
appropriate to the conventional 36 foot street. Sixty feet of
right-of-way is proper. There being no issues other than the
sidewalk, the Committee forwarded this item to the full
Commission for final resolution and determination as to the
requirement for a sidewalk and its proper placement.
2
June 30, 1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM Nfl.: 5 Continued FILE NO.: S-948
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 30, 1992)
The Planning staff offered its recommendation of approval of the
subdivision site plan as requested by Mr. Kirkpatrick. Staff
offered a brief overview of the single issue which has placed
this item on the regular agenda for discussion that being a
request by Public Works to construct a sidewalk adjacent to
West 34th Street. Mr. Robert Richardson, the engineer for the
project, was present. Mr. Richardson presented an overview of
his applicant's development proposal. His comments included a
statement which indicated his feeling about the sidewalks, which
is, that they would be more appropriately located on the north
side of the street because that side of the street relates more
to the Asher Avenue area. Pedestrian access from the adjacent
residential structures would be better to this street. He
pointed out that his project was approved and the current
commercial building began construction based upon the requirement
that his client build half of a 36 foot street with curb and
gutter. Sidewalk was not assessed at the building permit level.
There were no objectors in attendance. A lengthy discussion of
this proposal followed resulting in the Chairman asking for
direction of staff as to a possible resolution of this matter.
Staff responded by recommending that the sidewalk issue be
deferred until such time as the 34th Street project became a
reality as a public project. At that time, if a sidewalk is
determined to be located on the south side, Mr. Kirkpatrick would
provide the cost in front of his premises.
The Commission accepted this recommendation. A motion was made
to approve the site plan as submitted and incorporating the
staff's recommended sidewalk approach. The motion passed by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
3