Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0190 Staff AnalysisF M November 11, 1980 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Gladys Bullard Subdivision Corner of Cantrell and Rebsamen Road "wTr, r xl""r Gladys Bullard Jack Wilkes 5203 "R" Street P.O. Box 961 Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 72203 Phone: 758-0167 Phone: 835-9274 AREA: 0.68 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. OF NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C-3" PROPOSED USES: Office and Business PLANNING DISTRICT: 23 CENSUS TRACT: 16 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Lot depth. November 11, 1980 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued STAFF REPORT A. Existing Conditions The site indicated is located in a commercial area whose composition is mainly that of small businesses. The land is flat and angularly bordered on one side by the merging of Rebsamen Park Road, which runs to the immediate east of the property and Old Cantrell Road, which fronts it on the south. The sole existing structure consists of a small liquor store on what can be said to be the front half of the lot. What is proposed to be Lot 2 is now a vacant and graveled portion at the rear of this structure that does not possess any designated curb cuts. Matters of due concern that pertain to drainage include the observance of no curbs and gutters along the Rebsamen Park Road border and the knowledge of localized flooding in the area during very heavy rains. The site does not seem to be plagued by any other inconsistencies as to existing public facilities and services. to B. Development Proposal 1. The applicant requests that the present area of approximately 0.68 acres be divided so as to create two distinct lots, and that she be granted continued usage of a public street in front of the existing business for parking purposes. The present structure is to remain as is, and the new lot's use will allegedly allow for the construction of a one story building to be leased for commercial/office purposes. 2. Conformance to Ordinance. This plat seems to be in accordance with the various requirements of the ordinance as related to lot splits, setbacks, etc. The owner has requested a variance for lot depth; however, there appears to be no indication of a need for this, since both lots will meet the minimum depth requirements. 3. Legal Considerations None evident at this time. C. Engineering Considerations Have not been submitted in writing at this time. November 11, 1980 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued D. Analysis By all indications, this proposal revolves around two points. As a result of the staff's review and investigation of the case at hand, no need for the variance was found; however, the applicant's second request for continued use of an adjacent public area for parking raises a few concerns. As presently designed, this area serves as a safety hazard to all motorists within the area, as there is no safe, proper or controlled means of ingress and egress to the present business. The public area used for parking is the location of potential danger because not only is it used for parking purposes, but for a means of quick access to both bordering streets by some motorists. E. Staff Recommendation Approval of the plat only after the following conditions are met: 1. The legal closing of "0" Street on the south side so as to allow for no through traffic. 2. The building of the street improvements on Rebsamen Park Road frontage to collector standards. 3. Redesign of the island to eliminate present safety hazards and allow for a smoother traffic flow in the area. 4. Removal of present advertising signs from over the public right-of-way on the east side of the building. 5, Close curb cut on Old Cantrell Road. Reconstruct proper driveway entry. 6. Total elimination of any signage in the right-of-way. 7. Screening fence along the west line as agreed upon by the owner. Wr November 11, 1980 SUBDIVISIONS F Item No. 10 --Continued Enqineerinq Conditions Engineers have suggested that (a) the Rebsamen frontage be improved to collector standards, (b) the intersection of Old Cantrell and Rebsamen be redesigned, and (c) the owner of the triangular piece be clearly identified. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval as recommended by the staff subject to the five conditions set out in *staff's recommendation. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes. *Note: Commissioner Taylor suggested that the location of a 54' storm drainage be pinpointed before any work is done in the area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: �W The owner was present. A brief discussion was held during which Staff requested presentation of the drawings requested at the Subdivision Committee meeting. A motion was passed to approve the plat as recommended by the Subdivision Committee. The vote was unanimous: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. :a4