Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0167 Staff Analysis�0 March 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 NAME: DEVELOPER: Safeway Stores, Inc. 8109 Interstate #30 P.O. Box 2101 Little Rock AR 72203 Phone: 562-3583 AREA: 2.7 Acres E`D ZONING: CENSUS TRACT: Safeway Planned Unit Development/ Preliminary Kavanaugh plat at Beechwood ENGINEER: Allen Curry Brooks and Curry, Inc. 805-C West 29th North Little Rock, AR Phone: 758-3001 NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: -` -�-- New structure. PLANNING DISTRICT: VARIANCES REQUESTED: Setback P't:(S?0C-5-r: 'S;wj�7 )zECC M V\ k March 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued 1. PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting that this area of 2.782 acres be zoned from its present mixed classification as "R-2" (Single Family Residential) and "C-3" (General Commercial) to that of a planned commercial development zoning district, so that the present site may be expanded and a larger structure may be constructed. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE The proposed building conforms with most of the bulk and area requirements. However, a waiver of setbacks have been requested due to the nature of the building on the rear lot line. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH OFF-STREET PARKING The new structure, which is proposed to have an area of approximately 35,581 square feet, seems to conform with the Ordinance's off-street parking requirements in that all parking spaces lie on the same lot with the building. The plan allows for the provision of 141 parking spaces. 4. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 5. Engineering has recommended two special. requirements: (1) That minor improvements which include the replacement of curbs and sidewalks around the project be made, and (2) that a method of detaining some of the run-off be considered so that the impact on the downstream drainage system will be minimized. This is in regard to the inadequacy of the drainage structure that crosses Palm Street and moves across "F" Street. TREATMENT OF THE SITE/VISUAL EFFECTS The applicant has proposed to devote 17 percent of the site being 20,014 square feet to landscaping. Involved, is the preservation of several of the existing old oak trees along Palm Street. The adjacent residential area will be buffered from the development by the construction of a berm along the western 4W boundary of the property. March 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued 6. COMPLIANCE TO MASTER PLAN No issue. 7. ANALYSIS Staff's view of this proposal is quite favorable. The genera]_ consensus is that such a carefully planned development should have a positive effect on the surrounding community. No problems with an approval of the setback waiver is anticipated. This is mainly due to the nature of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept, which promotes and encourages design flexibility within an acceptable realm of standards. However, Staff does recommend that the applicant heed the special requirements suggested by the Engineers that pertain to minor street improvements where needed and the development of a scheme to deal with the drainage problem. S. STAVE RECOMMENDATION Approval subject to the stated requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION After a brief discussion, the Committee moved to support staff's recommendation for approval. During this time, Engineering stated that the second special requirement for an improved method of drainage be withdrawn. The vote was unanimous: 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Quite a few residents of the surrounding neighborhood were in attendance. John Ramer, Safeway's real estate representative, gave a brief presentation during which he reiterated the highlights of the plan. Several residents stated that their presence was not in opposition to the plan per se, but in response to their apprehensive feelings about possible adverse impacts to the community.* The first speaker, Ms. Margaret Clark, presented for the record two letters in support of her desire for an additional buffer along Palm Street in the form of a wall, and of her opposition to the proposed walk through between this street and the store. A suggestion was made by Ms. Belle Spates for the addition of a guardrail to March 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued buffer the abutting business building. Mr. Allen Gates, another resident, proposed that the Commission Aefer action on the matter until Safeway held a meeting to discuss the plans with the community. Other major concerns expressed were related to: (1) the possible increase of existing drainage problems; (2) an increase in traffic volume; and (3) the possible trend of this quiet residential area toward heavy commercial. Mr. Ramer responded to these comments by (1) stating their reluctance in building a wall that would disturb the food supply to existing trees along Palm Street, and (2) by amending the application to include the addition of a guardrail as requested by Ms. Spates. The residents were informed that these and any other unaired grievances could be expressed by staff in a formal statement to the Board as allowed by the PUD process. They were instructed to contact the staff. The Commission voted unanimously to pass this issue to the Board of Directors with a recommendation to approve the application as filed with the modifications offered by Mr. Ramer. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. *Note: Four property owners addressed the Commission: Ms. Margaret Clark, Ms. Belle Spates, Mr. Allen Gates and Mr. John Miller. 7 1�. q i March 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 NAME: Safeway Planned Unit Development/ Preliminary LOCATION: Kavanaugh plat at Beechwood DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Safeway Stores, Inc. Allen Curry 8109 Interstate #30 Brooks and Curry, Inc. P.O. Box 2101 805-C West 29th Little Rock AR 72203 North Little Rock, AR Phone: 562-3583 Phone: 758-3001 AREA: 2.7 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C-3"-11R-2" PROPOSED USES: Expand existing store. New structure. VARIANCES REOUESTED: Setback E7� March 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued 1. PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting that this area of 2.782 acres be zoned from its present mixed classification as "R-2" (Single Family Residential) and "C-3" (General Commercial) to that of a planned commercial development zoning district, so that the present site may be expanded and a larger structure may be constructed. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE The proposed building conforms with most of the bulk and area requirements. However, a waiver of setbacks have been requested due to the nature of the building on the rear lot line. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH OFF-STREET PARKING 4V The new structure, which is proposed to have an area of approximately 35,681 square feet, seems to conform with the Ordinance's off-street parking requirements in that all parking spaces lie on the same lot with the building. The plan allows for the provision of 141 parking spaces. 4. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Engineering has recommended two special requirements: (1) That minor improvements which include the replacement of curbs and sidewalks around the project be made, and (2) that a method of detaining some of the run-off be considered so that the impact on the downstream drainage system will be minimized. This is in regard to the inadequacy of the drainage structure that crosses Palm Street and moves across "F" Street. 5. TREATMENT OF THE SITE/VISUAL EFFECTS The applicant has proposed to devote 17 percent of the site being 20,014 square feet to landscaping. Involved, is the preservation of several of the existing old oak trees along Palm Street. The adjacent residential area will be buffered from the development by the construction of a berm along the western boundary of the property. March 10, 1981 `qr SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued 6. COMPLIANCE TO MASTER PLAN No issue. 7. ANALYSIS Staff's view of this proposal is quite favorable. The general consensus is that such a carefully planned development should have a positive effect on the surrounding community. No problems with an approval of the setback waiver is anticipated. This is mainly due to the nature of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept, which promotes and encourages design flexibility within an acceptable realm of standards. However, Staff does recommend that the applicant heed the special requirements suggested by the Engineers that pertain to minor street improvements where needed and the development of a scheme to deal with the drainage problem. 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval subject to the stated requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION After a brief discussion, the Committee moved to support staff's recommendation for approval. During this time, Engineering stated that the second special requirement for an improved method of drainage be withdrawn. The vote was unanimous: 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Quite a few residents of the surrounding neighborhood were in attendance. John Ramer, Safeway's real estate representative, gave a brief presentation during which he reiterated the highlights of the plan. Several residents stated that their presence was not in opposition to the plan per se, but in response to their apprehensive feelings about possible adverse impacts to the community.* The first speaker, Ms. Margaret Clark, presented for the record two letters in support of her desire for an additional buffer along Palm Street in the form of a wall, and of her opposition to the proposed walk k+' through between this street and the store. A suggestion was made by Ms. Belle Spates for the addition of a guardrail to 4W March 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued buffer the abutting business building. Mr. Allen Gates, another resident, proposed that the Commission defer action on the matter until Safeway held a meeting to discuss the plans with the community. Other major concerns expressed were related to: (1) the possible increase of existing drainage problems; (2) an increase in traffic volume; and (3) the possible trend of this quiet residential area toward heavy commercial. Mr. Ramer responded to these comments by (1) stating their reluctance in building a wall that would disturb the food supply to existing trees along Palm Street, and (2) by amending the application to include the addition of a guardrail as requested by Ms. Spates. The residents were informed that these and any other unaired grievances could be expressed by staff in a formal statement to the Board as allowed by the PUD process. They were instructed to contact the staff. The Commission voted unanimously to pass this issue to the Board of Directors with a recommendation to approve the application as filed with the modifications offered by Mr. Ramer. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. *Note: Four property owners addressed the Commission: Ms. Margaret Clark, Ms. Belle Spates, Mr. Allen Gates and Mr. John Miller. n