Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0114-1 Staff AnalysisFebruary 12, 1980 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 NAME: T nn*m'rr%". T"T7T.IT rvnnin . Hathaway, Moore and Associates Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-1700 AREA: 11.07 Acres ZONING: " 0-2" Executive Park Addition Southeast Corner of Interstate 430 and West Markham Street Edward J. Smith and Associates 401 South Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 NO. OF LOTS: 10 FT. OF NEW STREET: 660 PROPOSED USES: Offices PLANNING DISTRICT: 21 CENSUS TRACT: 24.01 VARIANCE REQUESTED: 1. Turnaround facility as shown on plat. 2. 50' right-of-way with 30' pavement. 3. Permit future variations in lot sizes and shapes from those shown. February 12, 1980 Item No. 4 - Continued A. Existing Conditions The site is fairly level to rolling, with slopes generally to the south where Rock Creek crosses a corner of the property. It is generally wooded, with scattered open areas. There are two (2) existing residences on the Markham frontage, one (1) of which is to be retained. Markham Street adjacent has recently been built to full current standards. All public services and utilities are available. B. Development Proposal No provisions for flood control are indicated. The proposal is to provide access to a large lot (three-four acres) office project at the south end of the property by means of a cul-de-sac with a series of small office sites fronting either side up to Markham Street. The cul-de-sac is proposed to have a 30' pavement width in a 50' right-of-way, rather than a 40' pavement and a 60' right-of-way. The turnaround facility is proposed to lie partially in a "public access easement" rather than right-of-way. Sidewalks, although not shown, would be required along all street frontages. A question of legal interpretation arises over the two (2) acre minimum site size requirement in the "0-2" Office District. Basically it is, must each lot proposed be two (2) acres or more, or does this application conform by virtue of its eleven (11) acre gross area? The Subdivision Ordinance would require 45' setbacks adjacent to Interstate #430. C. Analysis Proposed lot one (1) is clearly approvable under the terms of the ordinance, subject to detailed technical requirements. Lots 2 through 10, subject to legal interpretation, would have to be combined into two (2) tracts in order to conform to the intent if not the letter of the Zoning Ordinance. February 12, 1980 Item No. 4 - Continued D. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends that approval be subject to: 1. 7. Planni Denial of the first variance request to require full dedication of the cul-de-sac (note that conflict with the building line on Lot 1 could be avoided by shortening the street). Denial of the second variance request to require a full 60' right-of-way, 40' pavement and sidewalks throughout. Variance request to be governed by minimum zoning standards as interpreted by the City Attorney. Lots 2 through 10 to be combined as two ( 2 ) tracts until otherwise determined. Indicate any areas within the 100 year floodplain with protection be approved by the Engineering Division. Show 45' setbacks along Interstate 430. Approval at this time to include Lot 1 and 2, and two (2) other tracts combined in Lots 2 through 6 and Lots 7 through 10. Engineering Division approval of a detailed intersection design. Commission Action The owner and his engineer were present. They had submitted a revised layout shortly before the meeting. The revised staff recommendation was for approval subject to rezoning of lots smaller than 2 acres to the "0-3" Office District, and to technical requirements as necessary. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the staff recommendation with rezoning to be initiated by the staff. March 25, 1980 Item No. 14 - SITE PLAN REVIEW—2-342-S-5 Name: Executive Park Subdivision - Lots 3 and.-6 Location: West Markham at I-430, southeast corner. Applicant: Terry Moore PROPOSAL: 1. Construct a one story office building containing 24,300 square feet of floor space on three acres of land, with 400' + of street frontage. There are two lots involved: Lot 3, which contains only parking and Lot 6, which is the building site. 2. This str,Ucture complies with the basic bulk and area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Required Provided Front Yard 25' 27' Rear Yard 25' 25' Side Yard 25' North, 70' South, 207' Height 45' Under 20' Lot Coverage 40% max. 17% 3. Uses Proposed This structure will be a single user insurance company with no accessory uses proposed. 4. Special Requirements or Variance Issues a) A 25' green strip parallel to the boundary street, along both sides, is required. This requirement is also a requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance associated with reduction of the 45' building line to 25 feet. b) The Subdivision Ordinance requires a 40' undisturbed buffer strip and a 6' fence along the entire east boundary of the property. March 25, 1980 Item No. 14 - Continued c) The preliminary plat will require modification as to building lines if the 40' buffer is varied. STAFF ANALYSIS: 1. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS, HEALTH, PUBLIC SAFETY No adverse effect should be experienced from this development, due to the location of the building site relative to residential uses, the freeway and buffering lots. The only questionable issue is the effect on the east, as that property is developed residential, if the 40' buffer is reduced. 2. CONFORMANCE TO ORDINANCE AlthouglT conforming to intent and purpose generally, there are several design problems associated with the Subdivision Ordinance as noted in 4-a and 4-b above. We do not believe these to be insurmountable. However, the question of consistency and precedent must be dealt with. 3. TREATMENT OF SITE/VISUAL EFFECTS The terrain on which this development is to occur is contoured so as to provide the greatest exposure to the Interstate 430 side and southwesterly. The provision and maintenance of a 40' natural buffer and fence along the east line of this plat will serve to separate the office park from existing or potential residential uses nearby. A landscape and sign plan is in preparation and appears to be in conformance with the ordinances involved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Although no recommendation was presented to the Subdivision Committee in written form, the staff stated for the record that it is imperative that consistency be maintained in dealing with variances. The ordinance is very clear in its dealings with issues such as this site plan presents, and serious questions could be raised concerning arbitrary modification of ordinance requirements. The staff position on variances is one of strict interpretation of the guidelines set forth for exceptions and significant written justification for such exceptions. March 25, 1980 Item No. 14 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The staff presented the site plan and explained the requested variances, which were: 1. To allow a parking lot to intrude into the 25' front yard on Lots 3 and 6, and a third driveway on Lot 6. 2. To allow intrusion of building, drives and parking to the 40' buffer along the east property line of Lot 6. The applicant and his architect were present and presented their case for approval. A lengthy discussion ensued, involving points of review between the four Committee members, staff and the applicant. The result of the discussion was a motion to approve the site plan as presented, granting the following exceptions: 1. The 25' front yard on Lot 3, to be allowed a variable setback averaging at least 25 feet. 2. The 40' buffer on Lot 6 to be varied to allow its use as shown on the plan, with a 6' board fence along the entire east property line and appropriate landscaping to conform to ordinance. The vote to approve was: 3 ayes, 1 no and 1 absent. The Committee stated, as the principle reason for variance of the 40' buffer, its feeling that the potential for residential use to the east was remote, or at least questionable. They further stated that the tract configuration and the applicant's commitment to the buyer restricted the design flexibility needed. The terrain was also noted as being less than acceptable for optimal design. EDITORIAL NOTE: After the meeting adjourned, the applicant expressed concern for his case relative to the potential for denial, if only six members were present at the March 25 meeting and the lone dissenter in the Subdivision Committee maintained his opposition. A lengthy discussion ensued, involving staff, the applicant and the Planning Commission Chairman. The result of this was that objection to the case as recommended by the Committee would be withdrawn if the applicant agreed to certain changes. These are: March 25, 1980 Item No. 14 - Continued 1. That the fence, as requred by ordinance, be provided. 2. That amendment of 25' of natural green belt be maintained along the east line of Lot 6 from the turning point of the rear driveway to the south property line. 3. That parking be allowed to intrude into the 40' buffer at the northeast corner of Lot 6. COMMISSION ACTION: After a brief discussion, the Commission moved to approve the site plan as approved in the final negotiations including the three specific requirements listed immediately above. The motion was passed - 8 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. March 25, 1980 Item No. 15 - SUBDIVISION PLAT NAME: DEVELOPER: Hathaway -Moore & Associates AREA: 11.07 Acres ZONING: 110-2" Executive Park Addition Southeast corner of Interstate 430 and West Markham Street Edward G. Smith & Associates NO. OF LOTS: 10 FT. OF NEW STREET: 660 PROPOSED USES: Offices PLANNING DISTRICT: 21 CENSUS TRACT: 24.01 VARIANCE REQUESTED: 1.� Modification of 40' natural buffer along east line of Lot 6 to allow intrusion of structure (approximately 151), drive around rear of building and parking stalls at the northeast corner of Lot 6. COMMISSION ACTION: The Commission moved to approve the application as filed. The motion was passed - 8 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. February 12, 1980 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 NAME: Executive Park Addition Southeast Corner of Interstate 430 and West Markham Street i'1 1- 1-1- .. Hathaway, Moore and Edward J. Smith and Associates Associates Worthen Bank Building 401 South Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-1700 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 11.07 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 10 FT. OF NEW STREET: 660 ZONING: 110-2" PROPOSED USES: Offices PLANNING DISTRICT: 21 fi CENSUS TRACT: 24.01 VARIANCE REQUESTED: 1. Turnaround facility as shown on plat.- 2. 50' right-of-way with 30' pavement. 3. Permit future variations in lot sizes and shapes from those shown. February 12, 1980 Item No. 4 - Continued A. Existing Conditions The site is fairly level to rolling, with slopes generally to the south where Rock Creek crosses a corner of the property. It is generally wooded, with scattered open areas. There are two (2) existing residences on the Markham frontage, one (1) of which is to be retained. Markham Street adjacent has recently been built to full current standards. All public services and utilities are available. B. Development Proposal No provisions for flood control are indicated. The proposal is to provide access to a large lot (three-four acres) office project at the south end of the property by means of a cul-de-sac with a series of small office sites fronting either side up to Markham Street. The cul-de-sac is proposed to have a 30' pavement width in a 50' right-of-way, rather than a 40' pavement and a 60' right-of-way. The turnaround facility is proposed to lie partially in a "public access easement" rather than right-of-way. Sidewalks, although not shown, would be required along all street frontages. A question of legal interpretation arises over the two (2) acre minimum site size requirement in the "0-2" Office District. Basically it is, must each lot proposed be two (2) acres or more, or does this application conform by virtue of its eleven (11) acre gross area? The Subdivision Ordinance would require 451 setbacks adjacent to Interstate #430. C. Analysis Proposed lot one (1) is clearly approvable under the terms of the ordinance, subject to detailed technical requirements. Lots 2 through 10, subject to legal interpretation, would have to be combined into two (2) tracts in order to conform to the intent if not the letter ..r of the Zoning Ordinance. T 1. 1 February 12, 1980 Item No. 4 - Continued D. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends that approval be subject to: 1. Denial of the first variance request to require full dedication of the cul-de-sac (note that conflict with the building line on Lot 1 could be avoided by shortening the street). 2. Denial of the second variance request to require a full 601 right-of-way, 401 pavement and sidewalks throughout. 3. Variance request to be governed by minimum zoning standards as interpreted by the City Attorney. Lots 2 through 10 to be combined as two (2) tracts until otherwise determined. 4. Indicate any areas within the 100 year floodplain with protection be approved by the Engineering Division. 5. Show 45' setbacks along Interstate 430. 6. Approval at this time to include Lot 1 and 2, and two (2) other tracts combined in Lots 2 through 6 and Lots 7 through 10. 7. Engineering Division approval of a detailed intersection design. Planning Commission Action The owner and his engineer were present. They had submitted a revised layout shortly before the meeting. The revised staff recommendation was for approval subject to rezoning of lots smaller than 2 acres to the "0-3" Office District, and to technical requirements as necessary. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the staff recommendation with rezoning to be initiated by the staff.