HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0930 Staff AnalysisSeptember 10, 19_�
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-930
NAME: William Brandon - Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: 4201 South Shackleford Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER•
ALLAN BEASLEY SAM DAVIS
4210 S. Shackleford 5301 West 8th Street
Little Rock., AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72204
225-0052 664-0324
AREA: 12.56 Ac. NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: I-1 PROPOSED USES:. Warehouse/Off ice
PLANNING DISTRICT: I-430 - 11
CENSUS TRACT: 24.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
w
1.) Rear setback along the north boundary of 26 feet (regtired
30 feet)
2.) Rear setback along the south boundary of 15 feet (required
30 feet)
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
This applicant proposes to construct five (5) large
warehouses on a 12 acre tract presently zoned I-1. This
tract of land has 254 feet of Shackleford Road frontage,
and will be developed in five phases.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This property is mostly a flat tract of ground with heavy
foliage in place on the rear part, and a clear area on the
front. The street lying immediately to the west,
Shackleford Road, is a two-lane road with wide shoulders
on both sides.
C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
There are minor arterial right-of-way and improvements
required for Shackleford Road frontage. Excavation and
detention ordinances apply. The clearing and filling of
this site is in progress without an excavation permit.
1
September 10, 1991
Is
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 Continued FILE NO.: S--930
D. T-SUESILEGALITECHNICALIDESIGN:
Several issues to be introduced here are as follows:
1. The development as proposed does not deal with the
adjacent residential property lying to the north and
partly to the south, in such a fashion as to buffer the
effects of the warehouse's structures against the
single family homes.
2. The structure should be designed'so as to reduce the
total visible elevation of the buildings from the north
and south.
3. The applicant should apply for an excavation permit
before clearing and filling the site.
4. The development should comply with landscape ordinance
requirements - see Mr. Bob Brown in our department.
w
E. ANALYSIS: 1.
Staff's view of this proposal is that the project requires
additional work on the part of the architect and the
developer to reduce its impact on the adjacent residential
properties to the north and partly to the south. It is our
feeling that a significant buffering action should occur
adjacent to the north and south property lines. This buffer
should be plantings, a 6 foot wooden fence and additional
trees along the north and partly to the south.
The interior landscaping needs to be increased with another
6% of the total vehicular area. An average of 3 feet wide
landscape strip around the building is also required.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to
the comments made above.
SUBDIV SION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
(AUGUST 22, 1991)
Allan Beasley, representing the applicant, was present .
He described the project and the various elements of the
proposal. The Planning Staff asked about the screening details.
Mr. Beasley stated that he met with Bob Brown from our department
to discuss the required landscaping. Also, he agreed to provide
2
September 10, 1991
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 Continued _FILE No.: 5--9 3 0
the color sketch showing the landscape area and the size of the
buffer. There were no other issues of concern discussed by the
Committee. The item was passed to the full Commission without
any additional comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 10, 1991)
There were no objectors present. The application was
represented. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined
it appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for
approval. A motion was made to that effect and passed by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position.
3