Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0198-B Staff Analysis.A November 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 NAME: Lyman Lamb Building Line Waiver (Lamb's Industrial Replat of Block 23 and part of Block 24 of the initial C.O. Brack's Addition LOCATION: Near the intersection of Carl Street and Brack Avenue APPLICANT: Donald F. McKinley, Architect Little Rock, AR Phone: 565-7523 STAFF REPORT This property has previously been before the Commission for the closure of several rights -of -way relative to redevelopment of the total area. This applicant is now requesting that a proposed office building be allowed to encroach 25' into an area established by a 50' building line (required in 11I-2" Districts). Several reasons for justification of the waiver have been submitted.- A loss of property by fire approximately 22 months ago necessitates the replacement of an office building. Due to the irregular -shaped property, the selection of a building site is limited. The applicant feels that the encroachment is unavailable since the building site chosen is the only logical area for the building. Since sufficient space for loading/unloading and ingress/egress of large diesel trucks can then be provided on the remainder of the property. The building site is on the southwest area of the property which can't be used for warehouse expansion or traffic circulation. The applicant has also stated a belief that 50' of right-of-way is not needed to accommodate industrial traffic on Brack Street because: (1) it is only 3 1/2 lots in length and both ends are dead end; (2) there is no thru traffic on Brack Street and the only industrial traffic is routed from Asher Avenue, north on Monroe Avenue one block to their place of business. November 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 - Continued Finally, the applicant states that the encroachment will not be aesthetically damaging to the area, since the proposed building will not protrude beyond any neighboring structures. Staff believes that adequate justification for the waiver request has been submitted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments by Engineering. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Engineering reported no objections. A motion was made and passed for approval. The vote - 9 ayes 0 nays, 1 absent, and 1 open position. * (Two positions are open. However, Commissioner Ron Tabor attended and participated as permitted by Ordinance.) 13 March 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 S NAME: Carter Hinson Road Addition LOCATION: Corner of Napa Valley and Hinson Roads REQUEST: To develop the one (1) lot tract as condominiums with the requested variances. Jerry Lee Carter 53 El Dorado Drive Little Rock, AR Phone: 224-5922 AREA: 4 Acres + ZONING: 110-2" CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 T1T T1 ---- TT--TT-- 24 Allen Curry Brooks and Curry, Inc. P.O. Box 897 North Little Rock, AR # NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Medical Clinic 1. Waiver of sight distance requirements. 2. Waiver of scale of drawing. March 10, 1981 R Item No. 5 - Continued STAFF REPORT A. EXISTING CONDITIONS The land involved is located in a rural type setting that is characterized by generally rolling hills. Generally, developed portions of the area are comprised of large lot single family residences. The particular site in question has varied existing uses. Except for a long, white frame structure, most of the northern portion of the lot toward Hinson Road is vacant. Forty percent of the actual land area, towards the southern boundary of the tract, is presently wooded. Most prominent though is what appears to be a very sharp man-made cut near the center of the lot. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL : I The applicant is requesting that this area of 4 acres + be platted for use a Medical Clinic. This particular lot was recently rezoned to an "0-2" Office and Institutional District, which allows for the development of well designed office facilities on large tracts of land. The only variance requested is for a waiver of sight distance requirements on Napa Valley Road because a cut in excess of five feet would be mandatory to meet the regulations. Conformance to Ordinance 1. The request does not comply with the present Subdivision Ordinance because of the above stated variance. Leqal Considerations 2. Nonevident at this time. C. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS The City Engineers have agreed with the waiver of sight distance requirements as requested. They have also met with the applicant's engineers to specify the required improvements on Hinson Road. In reference to the area indicated for future development, Engineering recommends that access to Napa Valley Road from the site be restriced to the crest of the hill near the southern most property line.-' March 10, 1981 Item No. 5 - Continued D. ANALYSIS Staff is supportive of the request for a waiver of sight distance requirements in order to allow the existing grades of the streets to be used. Ordinarily, subdivision regulations would require that the street be cut down approximately 15' at the deepest point to achieve the sight distance required for a 40 mile per hour speed limit. Due to the physical makeup of Napa Valley Road and the applicant's agreement to abide by engineers suggestions, staff feels that approval of the waiver request is justified. E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval as recommended subject to compliance with agreement worked out with the City engineers. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Committee engaged in discussion concerning the nature of the financial agreement decided upon at the time this issue was presented as a rezoning case. Staff was instructed to investigate this matter. A vote was made and passed to approve subject to the results of staff's findings. A unanimous vote: 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff's report on the investigation requested by the Subdivision Committee revealed that no evidence of any financial agreement was found. The applicant, however, is willing to give some type of assurance, preferably a performance bond, to ensure the completion of the required improvements. The Commission made and passed a unanimous vote of approval. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. CJ U March 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 NAME: LOCATION: REQUEST: DEVELOPER: Jerry Lee Carter 53 E1 Dorado Drive Little Rock, AR Phone: 224-5922 AREA: 4 Acres + ZONING: 110-2" CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 T1T T1T 1.TT 1Tn T\TfTT TTnT _ 24 Carter Hinson Road Addition Corner of Napa Valley and Hinson Roads To develop the one (1) lot tract as condominiums with the requested variances. TawTnTwTanr_ Allen Curry Brooks and Curry, Inc. P.O. Box 897 North Little Rock, AR NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Medical Clinic VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Waiver of sight distance requirements. ?_a Waiver of scale of drawing. i 4.r March 10, 1981 Item No. 5 - Continued STAFF REPORT A. EXISTING CONDITIONS The land involved is located in a rural type setting that is characterized by generally rolling hills. Generally, developed portions of the area are comprised of,large lot single family residences. The particular site in question has varied existing uses. Except for a long, white frame structure, most of the northern portion of the lot toward Hinson Road is vacant. Forty percent of the actual land area, towards the southern boundary of the tract, is presently wooded. Most prominent though is what appears to be a very sharp man-made cut near the center of the lot. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting that this area of 4 acres + be platted for use a Medical Clinic. This particular lot was recently rezoned to an "0-2" Office and Institutional District, which allows for the development of well designed office facilities on large tracts of land. The only variance requested is for a waiver of sight distance requirements on Napa Valley Road because a cut in excess of five feet would be mandatory to meet the regulations. Conformance to Ordinance 1. The request does not comply with the present Subdivision Ordinance because of the above stated variance. Le al Considerations 2. Nonevident at this time. C. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS The City Engineers have agreed with the waiver of sight distance requirements as requested. They have also met with the applicant's engineers to specify the required improvements on Hinson Road. In reference to the area indicated for future development, Engineering recommends that access to Napa Valley Road from the site be restricted to the crest of the hill near the southern most property line. -4-- March 10, 1981 Item No. 5 - Continued D. ANALYSIS Staff is supportive of the request for a waiver of sight distance requirements in order to allow the existing grades of the streets to be used. Ordinarily, subdivision regulations would require that the street be cut down approximately 15' at the deepest point to achieve the sight distance required for a 40 mile per hour speed limit. Due to the physical makeup of Napa Valley Road and the applicant's agreement to abide by engineers suggestions, staff feels that approval of the waiver request is justified. E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval as recommended subject to compliance with agreement worked out with the City engineers. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Committee engaged in discussion concerning the nature 4P of the financial agreement decided upon at the time this issue was presented as a rezoning case.. Staff was instructed to investigate this matter. A vote was made and passed to approve subject to the results of staff's findings. A unanimous vote: 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff's report on the investigation requested by the Subdivision Committee revealed that no evidence of any financial agreement was found. The applicant, however, is willing to give some type of assurance, preferably a performance bond, to ensure the completion of the required improvements. The Commission made and passed a unanimous vote of approval. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent.