HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1253 Staff AnalysisJuly 8, 1999
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: 5-1253
NAME: Jacks Subdivision - Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: 5701 Scott Hamilton Drive
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
David Jacks McGetrick and McGetrick
9105 Chicot Road 319 East Markham, Suite 202
Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 7.3 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: I-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 13
CENSUS TRACT: 20.02
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Variance from the ordinance required minimum driveway setbacks
and spacing for the existing drives.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 7.3 acres of property
located on the east side of Scott Hamilton Drive, north of
West 65th Street, into two (2) lots. The property is zoned
I-2 and contains several industrial buildings. The
applicant proposes this subdivision in order to have
separate owners of the two proposed lots. Both lots will
be final platted at the same time. The applicant is
requesting a variance from the ordinance required minimum
driveway setbacks and spacing for the three (3) existing
drives. This issue is explained further in paragraph G of
this report.
July 8, 1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1253
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The majority of the property in this general area along
Scott Hamilton Drive is zoned I-2 and contains a variety of
industrial uses.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Wakefield Neighborhood Association was notified of the
public hearing. As of this writing, staff has received no
comment from the neighborhood.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
2. Prepare a letter pending development addressing street
lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock
Code. All requests should be forwarded to Traffic
Engineering.
3. Show driveway location on plat. Driveways must comply
with ordinance #18,031 (125 feet from P/L corner and 250
feet spacing). (Shared access may be required.)
4.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot
contour interval base flood elevation is required.
5. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186(e) is
required.
6.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
8-283 is required.
7. Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start work is
required.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
AP&L: No Comment.
Arkla: No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell: No Comment received.
Water: According to the PAGIS building coverage, it
appears that a building crosses the proposed lot line.
There is a fire service that serves the north lot that
may cross the south lot, which would be unacceptable.
There is a 12-inch water main in a 10-foot wide waterline
easement crossing this property, recorded in book 958,
P%
July 8, 1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.)
FILE NO.: 5-1253
page 5, Pulaski County Circuit Clerk, which is not shown.
Contact Marie Dugan at 377-1222 for details.
Fire Department: No Comment.
County Planning: No Comment received.
CATA: No issues.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division:
No Comments.
Landscape Issues:
No Comments.
G. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat drawing
to staff on June 23, 1999. Several notations have been
made to the preliminary plat as required by staff.
However, the following notes must be shown on another
revised plat drawing:
1. Source of title
2. Names of recorded subdivision and source of title
3.Names of all abutting property owners.
The applicant also submitted an as -built survey showing the
existing building locations (4). It appears that all of
the existing buildings conform to the ordinance required
minimum setbacks for I-2 zoning. The two proposed lots
also conform to the ordinance required minimum lot width
and area.
As noted in paragraph A, the applicant is requesting a
variance from the ordinance required minimum driveway
setbacks and spacing for the three (3) existing driveways.
The ordinance requires a minimum driveway setback of 125
feet from the property line and a minimum spacing of 250
feet between drives (measurements to be from center of
drives) .
3
July 8, 1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.
FILE NO.: 5-1253
The southernmost drive is approximately 80 feet from the
south property line, with the northernmost drive being
approximately 40 feet from the north property line. The
spacing is approximately 183 feet between the two
southernmost drives and 260 feet for the two northernmost
drives. Public Works recommends approval of the variance
as requested.
Otherwise, to staff's knowledge, there should be no
outstanding issues associated with the preliminary plat.
The proposed plat should have no adverse effects on the
adjacent property.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject
to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the requirements as noted in
paragraphs D and E of this report.
2. Staff recommends approval of the variance from the
ordinance standards for driveway setbacks and spacing
as requested by the applicant for the three (3)
existing drives.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(DUNE 17), 1999)
Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application. Staff
briefly described the proposed preliminary plat, noting several
items which needed to be shown on a revised preliminary plat
drawing.
Mr. McGetrick provided an as -built survey of the property,
showing the existing building locations in relation to the
proposed dividing lot line. It appeared that the buildings met
the setbacks of the I-2 zoning district.
The Public Works requirements were discussed with the applicant
and Committee. There was a detailed discussion regarding
driveway locations. Bob Turner, of Public Works, explained the
new ordinance which requires shared driveways and how that
ordinance applies to this property. It was noted that if the
applicant wishes to keep the existing driveway locations, a
variance would be needed for driveway spacing and setback.
0
July 8, 1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.)
FILE NO.: 5-1253
After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the preliminary
plat to the full Commission for final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JULY 8, 1999)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application, as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
5