Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0980 Staff AnalysisJune 1, 1993 TTEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: S 28Q NAME: MORRIS COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: North side of Markham Street at Chenal Parkway DEVELOPER• ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: ANDREW J. MCDONALD, BISHOP FRANK R. RIGGINS ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF L.R. THE MEHLBURGER FIRM P. O. Box 7239 201 South Izard Little Rock, AR 72217 P. O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203-3837 375-5331 AREA: 17.619 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-3 PROPOSED USES: Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the development of a three (3) lot commercial subdivision. Lot 1, which is scheduled for development initially and at this time, contains 15.251 acres. Lots 2 and 3 are proposed to be development at some later date. Lot 2 contains 1.063 acres and Lot 3, 1.288 acres. No variances are requested. A. PROPOSALZREQUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission is requested of a preliminary plat for a three (3) lot commercial subdivision. One lot, Lot 1, is the overwhelmingly predominant site, with 15.25 acres of the 17.62 acre site. The two remaining lots are each over an acre each. The Lot 1 site is the site reviewed by the Commission in a previous hearing for a conditional use for a Lowe's Home Improvement retail center. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located on Chenal Parkway at Markham Street, and is zoned 11C-3". It is undeveloped property and is covered June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION 2TEM ND.: 7(Con inueCl) FILE NO.: 5-980 in trees and natural undergrowth. To the south is additional "C-3" property. To the east is "C-2" property; to the west is "R-5" property and is developed as a church, and to the north is "R-211. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering comments that sidewalks are to be constructed on Chenal Parkway and Markham Street. They remind the applicant that the Detention and Excavation Ordinance are applicable. Water Works reports that the area designated as a "Water Works Easement" contains a 39 inch raw water main and must be protected during and after construction. Special requirements may be imposed during construction, and any work on the easement must be approved by and coordinated with Water Works. Water Works further reports that a main extension will be required to serve Lot 3 and that on -site fire protection may be required. Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main extension will be required with easements. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company reports that easements will be required. The Fire Department has approve the plat without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICALIDESIGN: A review of the documents submitted reveals the following deficiencies: The name and address of the owner of record are omitted, as is the information on the source of title. The name and address of the subdivider is missing. Information is not provided on the source of water and means of wastewater disposal. Information on the source of the contours is not provided. The required preliminary storm drainage plan with typical ditch sections is not provided. The names of abutting subdivisions, with plat book and page number or instrument, is not shown. 2 LTune 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM N 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: S- 80 The boundary lines are supposed to be indicated by a notably heavy line. The plat which is submitted has so much information on it, with all lines being so similar in weight, that location of the plat boundary is not definitive. Monuments are not described. Proposed locations of PAGIS monuments are not shown. The zoning classifications within the plat and on abutting property are not shown. The required certifications for surveying accuracy, engineering accuracy, and plat approval are missing. E. ANALYSIS• The site is zoned appropriately and no serious deficiencies exist in the technical documents submitted or which cannot be rectified. The requirements imposed by Engineering and the utilities should be able to be accommodated. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the application, subject to meeting Engineering and Utility requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 13, 1993) Mr. Frank Riggins of the Mehlburger Firm was present to present the application. Water Works had initially reported that the "Easement" was, contrary to what was shown on the survey, a Water Works owned right-of-way. It was pointed out that if this were true, the project could not proceed. Mr. Riggins indicated that he would investigate this matter immediately. (Water works subsequently reported that the initial report had been erroneous and that, in fact, the designation of the strip of land as an "easement" is correct,) Commissioners confirmed that the Lot 1 site is the location previously considered for a conditional use for the Lowe's development, and that buffer and landscaping considerations were mandated as part of that conditional use review. There being no further items for consideration, the Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for final resolution. 3 June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 Continued FILE NO.: S- $a PLANNING COMMISSION —ACTION: (JUNE 1, 1993) Mr. Frank Riggins, architect, and Mr. Dickson Flake, representative of the Catholic Diocess, were present to present this request. Staff reported that the item had been included for approval on the Consent Agenda until it was brought to light in pre -meeting discussions with individual Commission Members and the applicant's representative that there remained one issue for clarification, that issue being whether the landscaping buffer requirement along Chenal Parkway -Markham Street are to be applied as if the subdivision is one lot or three. Recollections were varied and divergent among Commission members and the applicant's representatives as to the content of the discussions and the requirements which were agreed to when the site was considered for re -zoning and for a Conditional Use Permit for the Lowe's site on the proposed Lot 1. All other matters had been clarified. Mr. Riggins outlined the applicant's request, indicating that the proposal is for a seventeen -acre, three -lot commercial subdivision with a Phase I site being the tract which Lowe's is looking at. He indicated that the remaining question is whether the application of the landscape buffer requirements is as if the property is one lot or three. Commissioner Olesen stated that it is her recollection that the Commission spent an hour when the re -zoning and conditional use permit were considered discussing the issue of the landscape buffering along Chenal Parkway and Markahm Street, and that it was her recollection that the end result of that discussion was and the sentiment of the Commission had been that the buffer would be applied as if the site were one lot. Chairman Walker suggested that if that understanding is everyone's recollection and the applicant is willing to proceed on that basis, then there are no issues remaining and a motion to approve the preliminary plat can be entertained. Mr. Flake, however, intervened and replied that if the landscaping buffer were applied as if the site is one lot, then this site "won't work"; the entire out -parcel depths would be consumed by the buffer requirement. He added that any application of the buffer requirements should be applied consistently from one parcel to another along Chenal Parkway. Chairman Walker concluded that if the preliminary plat showing the three lots had been considered first in the sequence, then the question of the application of the landscaping buffer being for one or three lots would be moot, since it would be obvious 4 June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-980 that it should be applied to the three platted lots individually. Chairman Walker said that the question before the Commission is the preliminary plat and that conditions on the previously approved conditional use permit may not be considered. Further discussion followed without resolution of the issue of the landscape buffer requirement to be applied. This discussion among Commission Members and Mr. Flake continued until a motion was made to approve the three -lot subdivision with the understanding that approval of the three -lot subdivision means that the landscape buffer is to be applied to the three lots individually. The motion passed with seven (7) ayes, two (2) nays, and two (2) absent. 5 February 8, 1994 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: NAME: MORRIS COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT -- TIME EXTENSION LOCATION: At the northeast corner of Chenal Parkway and W. Markham St. DEVELOPER: ANDREW J. MCDONALD, BISHOP ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESES OF LITTLE ROCK C/o L. Dickson Flake Barnes, Quinn, Flake & Anderson, Inc. P. O. Box 3546 Little Rock, AR 72203 372-6161 AREA: 17.619 ACRES ZONING• C-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 ENGINEER• THE MEHLBURGER FIRM P. O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375-5331 NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Commercial VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant relates that, because a prospective user of the site has delayed making a decision, which has caused a delay in making the required off -site improvements, the required off site work will not be completed which will allow a final plat to be executed within the twelve (12) month time -frame allowed for the plat to remain in the preliminary plat status. The applicant proposes a twelve (12) month extension of the time for the preliminary plat to be effective. A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: The applicant requests approval by the Planning Commission for a twelve (12) month extension for the preliminary plat for Morris Subdivision to be effective and binding on the Commission. This will allow, says the applicant, the necessary time for arrangements to be made with prospective users for development of the site, and for the required off - site improvements to W. Markham St. and Chenal Blvd. to be made. February 8, 1994 ITEM NO.: 1 Continued FILE NO. S-980 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. There has been no work undertaken to clear the site in preparation for development or to initiate the improvements to W. Markham St. or Chenal Parkway which were required in the approval of the preliminary plat. The site is zoned C-3. There is one major user area with two outparcels. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: There are no comments subsequent to or in addition to those comments made for the original hearing date. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Subdivision Ordinance, Section 31-94(e) states: "A preliminary plat approved by the Planning Commission shall be effective and binding upon the Commission for twelve (12) months or as long as work is actively progressing, at the end of which time the final plat application for the subdivision must have been submitted to the planning staff. Any plat not receiving final approval within the period of time set forth herein or otherwise conforming to the requirements of this chapter shall be null and void, and the developer shall be required to submit a new plat of the property for preliminary approval...." E. ANALYSIS• The preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission on June 1, 1993. The requested time extension is the first extension to be requested for the plat, and it is made well in advance of the expiration of the initial twelve (12) month time limit. This request and the granting of the request are in conformance with previous actions by the Commission on similar cases. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the requested twelve (12) month time extension for the preliminary plat to remain active. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1943) The item was presented to the Committee member present. Other than indicating the location of the site and the conditions under which the original approval had been granted, there was no discussion. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for action. K February 8, 1994 ITEM NO.: 10 Continued) FILE NO. S-980 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994) Staff reported that there are no issues to be resolved, and recommended approval of the request. The item was included in the Consent Agenda, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, no nays, one open position, no abstentions, and one open position. 3 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 25 FILE NO.: S-980 NAME: MORRIS COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT -- TIME EXTENSION LOCATION: At the northeast corner of Chenal Parkway and W. Markham St. DEVELOPER: ANDREW J. MCDONALD, BISHOP ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESES OF LITTLE ROCK C/o L. Dickson Flake Barns, Quinn, Flake & Anderson, Inc. P. O. Box 3546 Little Rock, AR 72203 372-6161 AREA: 17.619 ACRES ZONING: C-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: ENGINEER• THE MEHLBURGER FIRM P. O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375-5331 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Commercial On June 1, 1993, the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for the subject site. On February 8, 1994, at the request of the property owner, the Planning Commission granted a one-year time extension for the Preliminary Plat. ATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes an additional one-year time extension for the preliminary plat, saying that: "We are working with prospects that plan to develop the property in the near future." A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for an additional one-year extension of time for the approved preliminary plat to be effective, and to be binding on the Commission. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site remains undeveloped. May 16, 1995 BDIVI I ITEM NO.. 2 Cont. FILE NO,: S-980 The existing zoning is C-3. C. ENGINEERINGZUTILITY COMMENTS: There were no comments required or submitted on this issue. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAW DESIGN: The Subdivision ordinance, Sec. 31-94(e) states: "A preliminary plat approved by the Planning Commission shall be effective and binding upon the Commission for twelve (12) months, or as long as work is actively progressing, at the end of which time the final plat application for the subdivision must have been submitted to the planning staff. Any plat not receiving final approval within the period of time set forth herein or otherwise conforming to the requirements of this chapter shall be null and void, and the developer shall be required to submit a new plat of the property for preliminary approval...." E. ANALYSIS• The developer asserts that he is progressing with the sale and development of the property. It is customary to grant extensions of time, as long as there is an indication that there is progress which will lead to being able to submit the final plat. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the requested time extension. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Since no site plan issue was involved, staff had told the applicant that his attendance at the Subdivision Committee meeting was unnecessary. Staff informed the Committee of the requested time extension, and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff recommended approval of the requested time extension, and the item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval. The time extension was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent.