The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutS-1013 Staff AnalysisMarch 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: S-1013 NAME: BIG "K" SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: On the west side of John Barrow Road, beyond the present west end of Labette Drive & approximately 300 feet south of Labette Drive. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: KELTON BROWN, SR. ROBERT D. HOLLOWAY 13700 Bechenham Dr. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS INCORPORATED Little Rock, AR 72212 200 Casey Dr. 225-2111 Maumelle, AR 72113 851-8806 AREA: 6.147 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 250 ZONING: Lots 2 & 3: MF-12 PROPOSED USES: Commercial Lot 1: 0-3 & MF-12 PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the development of a commercial subdivision on a 6.14 acre tract. A 250 foot section of Labette Drive is proposed to be constructed, extending the street westward from its present termination to the edge of the proposed development. The applicant proposes to seek a rezoning of the lot north of Labette Drive from its present MF-12 to an office zoning classification. For the area south of Labette Drive and for the portion of the tract abutting John Barrow Road, a separate application for a PCD classification is requested. This application is to be reviewed as another item on the agenda and would change the zoning classification from MF-12 and 0-3 to PCD. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat for a commercial subdivision involving the creation of 3 lots and the construction of an extension of Labette Drive Two of the proposed lots will have frontage on Labette Drive; the third, on John Barrow Road The lot on the north side of the Labette Drive extension is in an area which is currently zoned MF-12; however the applicant proposes to seek an office classification at a later March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) _ FILE NO • S-1013 hearing. The lot fronting on Labette Drive but lying on the south side of the extension, coupled with the lot to the south which has its frontage on John Barrow Road, is to be considered for a PCD designation as another item on the agenda. No improvements are anticipated on John Barrow Road No variances are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and is wooded. A creek traverses the site from north to south. The current zoning is MF-12 and 0-3. Undeveloped MF-12 land abuts the property to the west. Developed R-5 property abuts the proposed subdivision to the north. Undeveloped R-2 property lies to the south. Across John Barrow Road to the east is undeveloped 0-1 property. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering notes that the developer is required to construct a 36 foot wide road and dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for Labette Drive The centerline for Labette Drive extending westward for a future tie-in to Labette Drive extending eastward from Morris Manor Drive is to be provided to Engineering. Engineering will need to determine that the proposed curve within the boundary of the proposed platted area will meet the future extension in a manner which will meet Regulations. A temporary cul-de-sac or hammer -head turn -around will be required at the end of Labette Drive The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable. Water Works reports that a pro-rata front footage charge of $15.00 per foot for water connections off of the main in Labette Drive will be applicable. Wastewater Utility will require a sewer main extension with easements. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. & Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL(TECHNICALIDESIGN: The applicant has failed to complete the application process: an application form has not been completed showing the name, address, and phone number of the developer and engineer; the needed information on the length of street to be constructed, etc. has not been completed. E March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO_: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1013 The engineer has failed to provide the physical description of the monuments or to designate proposed PAGIS monuments. The surveying accuracy certification does not indicate that the survey has been filed for record in the office of the state surveyor and the county circuit clerk/recorded within the last seven years. A preliminary Bill of Assurance has not been submitted. There is a need for the project engineer to present information on the proposed means of dealing with the creek which flows across the site. Is it to be relocated; put under ground, or simply channelized? Engineering's request for submission of a design for the future extension of Labette Drive westward towards Morris Manor Drive has been partially met; however, the proposed design does not meet the requirements. The project engineer needs to contact the City Engineering division and coordinate the requirements with that division. E. ANALYSIS• Overall the deficiencies in the submittal are minor and can be easily remedied. It is not anticipated that the curve within the subdivision for Labette Drive cannot be accommodated in the design for the Labette Drive extension to the west. Neither the applicant nor the project engineer have presented their proposal to the Subdivision Committee, so the Committee has not had an opportunity to question them or to satisfy themselves that the applicant or his engineer will conform to the requirements or satisfy the deficiencies noted. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends deferral of the application to the next subdivision agenda so that the applicant and his engineer can present their proposal to, and discuss the proposal with, the Subdivision Committee. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) No one was present to represent the applicant. Staff outlined the proposal and presented the deficiencies of the application which were noted in the discussion outline. The Committee members reviewed the submittal, but were unable to confer with the applicant nor the engineer. Consequently they passed the item to the Commission for consideration of an appropriate action to be taken in light of the absence of the applicant and engineer. 3 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1013 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff reported that neither the applicant nor his engineer had been present at the Subdivision Committee meeting, but that staff had forwarded the deficiencies to the project engineer. Staff reported that all deficiencies in the submittal were complete and the recommendation from the staff was for approval of the preliminary plat. Staff went on to say that Robert Holloway, the project engineer has reported to the Planning staff that all concerns of the City Engineering office had been resolved-. Mr. Robert Holloway indicated that, indeed, Engineering's concerns had been addressed. One concern, that of Labette Drive's future alignment to the west outside the west boundary of the proposed subdivision, cannot be resolved by the applicant. He explained that because of the position of Labette Drive as it presently exists at its intersection with John Barrow Rd. and with Morris Manor Dr., any proposed alignment will fail to meet the Master Street Plan standards for the design of the connector linking the two ends. He related that the City Engineering office had indicated that a waiver from the Master Street Plan regulations would have to sought when that connector street was constructed. Jerry Gardner with the City Engineering office confirmed Mr. Holloway's statement that all concerns of the City Engineering office were addressed, and recommended approval of the preliminary plat. Chairperson Chachere confirmed that the staff recommendation was for approval, and that the recommendation contained in the agenda write-up for deferral had been superseded by the applicant having submitted the completed documents and gained the approval of the City Engineering office. Commissioner Willis sought clarification of the situation regarding a waiver for Labette Dr. which Mr. Holloway had mentioned. Staff responded that a waiver would have to be dealt with at some future time when the property to the west of the applicant's proposed development, which is owned by another part, is developed. There is no need for a waiver for the proposed layout of Labette Dr. within the boundary of the applicant's property. Chairperson Chachere asked the Commission if there was a motion on the request. A motion was made and seconded to approve the preliminary plat as presented. The motion carried with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. 4