Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0115 Staff Analysisr- April 8, 1980 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: le�k // 6-'� Pleasant Valley Office Park At the "Y" and Rodney Parham and Woodland Heights Road ENGINEER: The nanny Thomas Co. Edward G. Smith & Associates 301 Gaines Place 401 South Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-2231 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 5.0 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 10 FT. OF NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: 110-3" PROPOSED USES: Offices PLANNING DISTRICT: 24 CENSUS TRACT: 22.04 c VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. A 40' buffer adjacent to the Catholic Church property to the north. 2. A public minor commercial street and ROW through the Office Park. 3. Request a 15' front building setback adjacent to the private drive system as shown on the plat. 4.. Request that the construction of sidewalks around the perimeter of the landscaped mall area be delayed until each lot is developed. 5. Request that the minimum lot size of 100' x 140' be approved. 6. Request that the access points be approved as shown on the development concept plan. April 8, 1980 Item No. 2 - Continued A. Existing Conditions The site is level, dropping only 20' from south to north. All concentrated drainage is in the adjacent street right-of-way. Most of the trees were removed prior to halting work on the unfinished foundation on the north end of the property. Adjacent streets and drainage are less than current standards. All property utilities and services are available. B. Development Proposal Nine (9) lots with a single office building on each are to be served by a private drive and central mall area, with landscaping and extra common parking. Lot 10, at the intersection, is proposed to be a drive-in bank site. A new list of variance requests has been submitted. Members will be provided copies of the justifications. Staff assessments of these justifications is as . follows: 1. Churches are regarded as appropriate uses in residential areas and should be screened from more intense uses. In view of the variance requested from the 40' buffer provision, it may be reasonable to require a more substantial screen fence such as a tilt -up concrete wall or masonry columns with wood panels. 2. Through 6. all are reasonably justified. Parking is prohibited in 25' front setbacks. This would apply to Lots 1 and 9, and possibly Lots 6 and 7. Another legal consideration involves the use of Lot 10 as a drive-in branch bank, which is not a by right use in the "0-3" District. Presumably, it would have to be a conditonal use application or would be an automatic rezoning to "C-1." W April 8, 1980 Item No. 2 - Continued C. Engineerinq Considerations The Engineering Division advises that the developer be required to: (1) Construct a 24.' wide portion of the Pleasant Forest Drive connection on the alignment agreed upon, and (2) construct standard improvements on Rodney Parkham and Woodland Heights Roads as required by the master Street Plan. D. Analysis The small lot approach to office development poses some inherent difficulties. First, are inefficiencies in the land utilization by fragmentation of open space and parking, and in building construction and operation. Also, problems could arise in maintaining consistent quality and style design and architecture of overall cohesiveness. A preferable approach would be a unified development of one (1) to three (3) structures with common access, parking and landscaping. The virtues of the proposal submitted are that: (1) It minimizes access points on Rodney Parham and Woodland Heights Roads, (2) It provides much needed boundary street improvements, and (3) it provides the right--of-way and first phase construction of the Pleasant Forest Drive connection to Rodney Parham, Lots 4, 5 and 6 could take access from Woodland Heights Road, rather than the interior private access. E. Staff Recommendation The Commission should consider the problem of approving a development style which necessitates numerous variance requests. The staff has reservations about an approach which emphasizes economic return above long-term efficiency and overall unity of design. Any approval should be subject to the specific items mentioned in the staff report above. Subdivision Committee Recommendation: The developer and his engineer were present to represent their application. V, April 8, 1980 4 Item No. 2 - Continued They emphasized that strong architectural controls would be imposed by the Bill of Assurance, and that all landscaping and boundary street improvements would be provided with the first phase of development. The Subdivision Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval as requested, subject to: (1) Application for a conditional use permit for the proposed drive-in bank, and (2) Required improvements to be built all at once. Planning Commission Action: The owner, his agent, and his engineer were present. They expressed agreement with the Subdivision Committee recommendation but requested to be permitted to construct a 6' redwood screen fence along the north boundary rather than a masonry wall. A motion to grant approval as recommended by the Subdivision Committee, subject to the requirement of a more substantial wall or fence, failed for want of a second. A second motion to grant approval as recommended by the Subdivision Committee was adopted unanimously.