HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1066 Staff AnalysisMay 16, 1995
ITEM_NO.: 14 FILE NO.: S-1066
NAME: ATKINSON DENTAL CLINIC -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the south side of Kanis Rd., approximately 750 feet
west of John Barrow Rd., at 9007 Kanis Rd.
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
Pat McGetrick
DR. ROBBIE R. ATKINSON MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
1801 W. 40th. St., Suite 2-A 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200
Pine Bluff, AR 71603 Little Rock, AR 722111
534-7860 223-9900
AREA: 0.8 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING• C-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 9
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES: Offices
The applicant proposes development of a site to contain two
buildings to be used for offices, one of the buildings, the
front/north building being an existing residential structure; the
second, to be located at the rear/south extremity of the site,
being a new building. The existing building is a single -story
structure and has 2,265 square feet of floor area. The new
facility will also be a single -story building, and will contain
4,500 square feet of floor area. A drive entrance to the site
along the east property line is planned, with 33 parking spaces
being provided. Required buffering and landscaping is proposed
to be provided. No variance are requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Review and approval by the Planning Commission of a site
plan is requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently occupied by a single, one-story
residential structure, located 17 feet off the Kanis Rd.
right-of-way line. Beyond the immediate rear yard area, the
site is undeveloped and is heavily wooded.
May 16, 1995
SOHDIVISIOI
ITEM 14 Cont. FILE NO.: S--1066
The current zoning of the site is C-3, and the C-3 zoning
district extends onto all properties to the east, west, and
south. Across Kanis Rd. to the north is an 0-3 zoned area.
C. ENGTNEERTNG/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The Public Works staff comments that: 1) the site plan has
some technical deficiencies which need to be addressed; 2)
construction of one-half of minor arterial, with a sidewalk
will be required; 3) additional right-of-way must be
dedicated to provide 45 feet of right-of-way from the
centerline of Kanis Rd.; 4) a stormwater detention analysis
must be provided; 5) the driveway, at its intersection with
Kanis Rd. must be modified so that it makes the intersection
at a 900 angle; 6) a grading permit may be required.
Water Works comments that on -site fire protection may be
required.
Wastewater comments that sewer service is available to the
site.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. Their
marked -up site plan indicates that a 15 foot wide easement
will be required along all four sides of the site.
Southwestern Hell Telephone Co. is requiring a 5 foot
easement along all four sides of the perimeter of the
property.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
The Fire Department noted that on -site fire hydrants may be
required to be provided on the site.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments that:
Sec. 36-130 specifies the requirements for Site Plan
review, and the following deficiencies are noted and
need to be addressed: a) the proposed perimeter
treatment of the property, indicating screening
materials to be used, is to be supplied; b) a schematic
landscaping plan is to be provided; c) a topographic
cross-section is to be provided; d) quantitative data,
including the building coverage and floor areas, are to
be provided; e) the existing and proposed pedestrian
circulation system is to be shown; and, f) the location
of all existing utility easements are to be noted.
E
May 16, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM N 14 Cont. FILE NO.: S-1066
A legal description for the site is needed.
The application indicates that the use is "office"; the
applicant is shown as a doctor. Sec. 36-502(b)(2)
states that medical clinics are to have 6 spaces per
doctor or dentist; business and professional offices
are to have 1 space per 400 square feet of gross floor
area. The 2265 square foot building, plus the 4500
square foot building would be required to have 18
spaces; 28 are provided.
Sec. 31-13 requires site plan review for
"...construction involving two (2) or more
buildings..." on a site. Because the proposed project
contains two buildings, review of the site by the
Planning Commission is required.
Public Works has noted that dedication of right-of-way
and boundary street improvements are required. The
applicant did not request any variances or waivers;
yet, has not provided for these requirements in the
site plan. Whether the right-of-way and Master Street
Plan improvements are to be provided, or not, must be
addressed.
Landscape review comments that the areas set aside for
buffers and landscaping meet ordinance requirements;
and, that curb and gutter or another approved
protective borer will be required to protect landscaped
areas from vehicular traffic.
E. ANALYSIS•
Two major questions remain unanswered; specifically, the
right-of-way and street improvements issues. The site plan
and required exhibits need to be complete and amended as
required in the comments above.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the
applicant completing the submittal requirements, and subject
to either indicating that Master Street Plan requirements
will be met or that a waive or deferral of these is
requested.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995)
Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff
outlined the submitted site plan to the Committee, and reviewed
with Mr. McGetrick the and Committee members the comments
3
May 16, 1995
ITEM NO.: 14 (Conk.) FILE NO.; S-1066
contained in the discussion outline. The Public Works staff
discussed the Master Street Plan requirements and the alignment
of the driveway issue. Mr. McGetrick responded that these
matters would be discussed with the applicant and the application
would be amended as needed. The Committee forwarded the site
plan to the full Commission for approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(MAY 16, 1995)
Staff reported that all issues had been resolved, and staff
recommended approval of the site plan. The item was included on
the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the
approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays,
0 abstentions, and 0 absent.
4