HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0314 Staff AnalysisT ! 4 l
March 15, 1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - File No. 3.14
Woodall's Flea Market -
NAME-
A_�'
Site Plan Review
S. University Avenue at
LOCATION:
-
Fourche Creek
ENGINEER:
DEVELOPER:
Edward G. Smith and Associates
Sidney Woodall
401 Victory
6901 W. 42nd
Little Rock, AR 72204
Little Rock, AR 72201
374-1666
Phone: 565-5691
P
Phone:
AREA: 4.460 acres i+10 . OF
LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C-4"
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
REQUEST:
Site plan review of a multiple
building site.
PROPOSAL:
The construction of
49 buildings on 4.460 acres for use
1.
as a flea market.
2. Development Scheme
( a) Number of Buil-dings - - - - - _ - - 49
(b) Building Size
- - - 17..' x 20' - - - 240 sq. ft.
- -- - - -- 11,760 sq. ft.
(c) Total Floor Area
- -_
3. Dustproof parking area for 77 cars.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENT'S _("C-4_' Districts)-.
Required Provided
_ 45' 45'
1. Front Yard - - - -
15, 15'
2. Side Yard - - - "»
..' _ 25' 65'+
3. Rear Yard - - _
- 14,000' 4.46 acres
4. Lot Size - _ "
March 1� _ 19-83
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
(1) Show line of F;loodway limits.
(2) State on plat the required flood or flood proofed
elevation of 260.6 m.s.l.
ANALYSIS:
This proposal represents an attempt, by the applicant, to
make use of land that is not suitable for most purposes, due
to its existing condition. The plan dictates the
construction of 49 small buildings entirely in the
floodplain. Much of the remaining property is in the
floodway of Fourche Creek. The creek borders the property
from its northeastern to southwestern points.
As submitted, the site plan does not meet the usual
requirement of 10' between detached buildings. Due to the
unique nature of.'this proposal, 10' may not be needed.
Staff suggests that the applicant submit a plat of the area,
permanently setting the setbacks at the buildable area.
Also, unit typicals on sections indicating the building's
structural elevations :should be submitted to give some idea
of physical appearance.
STAFF'RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
A motion was ma3e for approval, subject to the submission of
a one -lot final plat showing the proper floodway information
requested by Engineerinq and a plan showing typicals of the
buildings. The motion passed by a vote of: 2 ayes, 0 noes,
3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff
reported that the applicant hari submitted a one lot final
plat indicating the setbacks, floodway arld buildable area,
but not unit- typicals. The staff modified its
recommendation by requesting that the item be deferred until
the City Board established a policv on the acquisition of
area in the floodplain.
March 15, 1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
A lengthy discussion was held during which several arguments
against developing on this site were raised. Mainly, they
focused on the Parks Department's plan for acquiring
floodway lands so as to limit :development on such sites and
maintain control of the Eloodway, and the potential danger
being created by the approval of temporary structures and
parking in the floodway. A motion was made and passed to
deny the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7
ayes, 1 no, 2 absent and 1 abstention.
(No vote - Commissioner Rector, abstaining - Commissioner.
Massie)