HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0121-A Staff AnalysisI
t127178
f item No. 13
Name: Bransco Addition
Location: Northeast -corner Young Road and Enmar Drive
Developer: Engineer
Brooks and Curry, Inc.
805 "C" West 29th Street
North Little Rock, AR
Area: 9.82 A No. of Lots: 2
Zoning: "I" Light Ind. Prom. Uses:
Planning District: 20
Census Tract: 20�.02
Variances Requested:
None.
Ft. of New St.:
Commercial and Industrial
A. Exi sti n
Iq Conditions:
The site is flat and mostly open. Both Enmar Drive and Young
Road are in place but do not conform to current standards.
B. Development Proposal:
Lot 1 is proposed for development at this time as at "wholesale
grocery store."
All street and drainage construction will be required to match
previous requirements.
Industrial zoning would require 30 foot interior setbacks. The
92.5 feet parcel north of Lot 1 was illegally sold. It should
be included and would need waiver of setbacks.
C. Analysis:
Young Road is very inadequate and should be improved as soon as
possible to its proposed width of 30 foot back to back. This could
be accomplished by requiring that Lot 2 be platted in final form
with Lot 1 and that street improvements for both lots be built
simultaneously.
D. Staff Recommendation:
The Staff recommends approval subject to:
1. Include property to the north on preliminary and final
plats with 30 foot interior setbacks.
2. Show all other interior setbacks also.
3. Include Lot 2 on the first final plat and construct all
public improvements at the same time.
Item No. 13 Cont.
E. Subdivision Committee Recommendation:
The engineer was present. He opposed requirement of improvements
on Enmar Drive. He said that those improvements had been installed
to current standard at one time even though they may since have
deteriorated.
The Subdivision Committee recommends approval as recommended by the
Staff.
COMMISSION ACTION
Jim Hathaway, agent for the owner, appeared in objection to the staff
recommendation. His two principal objections were: 1) That to require
improvements on Young Road would be an undue burden until the sale and
imminent development of the adjacent Tract 2; and 2) that his client
could not force the inclusion of a parcel not now owned by him. He
also maintained that Enmar Drive had previously been built to City
standards.
The Commission voted unanimously to approve the plat as recommended by the
staff, but with the stipulations that inclusion of the illegal lot be
optional at this time, and that Young Road improvements be required as
condition of development of Tract 2 adjacent.
Ei