Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1003 Staff Anaysis` May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S-1003 NAME: SHACKLEFORD INDUSTRIAL PARK LOCATION: On the east side of Shackleford Road, approximately 0.2 miles south of Colonel Glenn Road DEVELOPER: KELTON BROWN, SR. 13,700 Beckenham Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 225-2111 AREA: 10.65 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS ZONING• I-1 PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.05 ENGINEER• ROBERT D. HOLLOWAY 200 Casey Drive Little Rock, AR 72118 851-8806 8 FT. NEW STREET: 650 PROPOSED USES: Industrial VARIANCES REQUESTED: Improvements to Shackleford Road STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the development of an industrial park. The site is a 10.65 acre tract, and the creation of 8 industrial lots is proposed. Shackleford road borders the site on the west, and a single internal street totaling 650 feet in length is proposed. The applicant proposes 50 foot building set -back lines along the internal street frontages; 70 foot along Shackleford Road. A 100 foot building line is proposed along the east property line. A. PROPOSAL/RE_4UE_ST: The applicant requests approval by the Planning Commission of a preliminary plat for the development of a 8-lot industrial park subdivision. The site is a 10.65 acre tract. One cul-de-sac internal street is proposed with a total length of 650 feet. The internal street is proposed to be constructed to Master Street Plan standards; no improvements to Shackleford Road are planned, although dedication of the required right-of-way is proposed. The Zoning Regulations specify a 70 foot front building line in the I-1 zoning district; the applicant proposes to conform to the required setback on the Shackleford frontage, but proposes a 50 foot setback along the internal street. A 100 foot building line is proposed along the east boundary of the subdivision as a buffer to the residential area beyond. May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: A (ContinuedlFILE NO.: S-1003 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is mostly cleared, with the remains of the former use as a construction yard on the site. To the north is the site of the approved but as yet undeveloped "Buie Mini -storage PCD11. Presently that site is occupied by a non -conforming junk yard use. To the west and south is additional I-1 property. Along the east property line is a 50 foot wide OS strip, with R-2 property beyond. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The City Engineering office reports that the internal street layout must be redesigned to meet minimum Master Street Plan standards. The double cul-de-sacs design does not meet that standard. Dedication of right-of-way along Shackleford Road and improvements of Shackleford Road to Master Street Plan standards is required. The Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable to this development. (Engineering advises that the applicant needs to file an application for a State permit.) PAGIS monuments must be shown. A name for the proposed internal street must be shown. Water works indicates that a water main extension will be required. A pro-rata front footage charge of $15.00 per front foot applies in addition to the normal connection charge for connections off Shackleford Road.= Wastewater reports that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUESILEGALITECHNICAL/DESIGN: The application and Bill of Assurance indicate that the name of the proposed subdivision is Shackleford Road Industrial Park. The plat shows the name as Shackleford Industrial Park, leaving out "Road". Make the information consistent. The plat shows the width of the right-of-way of the internal street, but does not show the width or location of the street. This needs to be shown. 2 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: A (Continued) _ FILE NO.: S-1403 Both the names and the book and page number or instrument number of the recording of all abutting subdivisions must be shown. Where the abutting property is not subdivided, the names of the owners of that property must be shown. This information is not complete on the plat. The zoning classifications of abutting properties are to be shown. This is incomplete on the plat. A certificate of preliminary surveying accuracy is required to be included on the plat. This has been omitted. The I-1 zoning district requires site plan review by the Planning Commission prior to development. Each lot will have to be reviewed in the Commission as development is undertaken. E. ANALYSIS• There are fundamental problems with the design of this subdivision involving the layout of the internal street not meeting Master Street Plan standards, yet there is not a lot of flexibility for modifying the layout. The applicant needs to confer with the City Engineering office as a re -design is considered. The remaining deficiencies can be easily remedied. The anticipated use is in conformance with the zoning and the Land Use Plan. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends deferral of this request pending a re -design of the internal street. SUBDIVI_SION COMMITTEECOMMENT: (DECEMBER 9, 1993) No one was present to present this item. Staff reported that a FAX had been received from the project engineer, Mr. Robert Holloway, indicating that a deferral was being requested until the February 8, 1994 Planning Commission hearing. The item, then, was not reviewed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 4, 1994) Staff reported that the item could be included on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the February 8, 1994 hearing. The deferral was approved with the vote of 7 ayes, no nays, 4 absent, and no abstentions. 3 -May 3, 1994 ITEM NO. A (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1003 STAFF UPDATE The applicant has submitted a second request for a deferral of this item. A letter dated January 20, 1994 was received in which the applicant requests a deferral to the March 22, 1994 Commission hearing. The applicant has indicated that he has negotiated with a buyer for the development of a significant portion of the proposed site, and that this is necessitating a substantive re -design of the site. It is noted that, pursuant to the Commission Bylaws, Article V, Section E, paragraph 9-b, the second deferral will require a renotificaiton of the property abutting property owners, and pursuant to paragraph 9-d, there can be no additional deferrals granted. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994) Since the request for the additional deferral had been received, this fact was related to the Committee, and there was no discussion of the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994) Staff reported that a letter had been received from the applicant's engineer, dated January 20, 1994, requesting a second deferral to the March 22, 1994 Commission meeting. The request to defer the item was included in the Consent Agenda, and the approval of the deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, no nays, one open position, no abstentions, and one open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Neither the applicant nor the engineer were present. Staff indicated that a revised preliminary plat had been submitted, and that Engineering was reviewing the drawing. Staff reminded the Committee that no one had been present for either of the previous two Subdivision Committee meetings when the item was scheduled; the applicant had asked for deferrals on each of the two previous agendas, and had not made a presentation at the Committee meeting. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for a determination of the action to be taken in this situation and, if appropriate, to conduct the public hearing. 4 -May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1003 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff related that the applicant has not presented the revised plat to the Subdivision Committee for review and comment, nor has the City Engineering Division prepared comments on the revised drawing. Staff reported that the Subdivision Committee had expressed concern that the applicant's engineer has failed to make the required presentation on 3 scheduled reviews (for the original review plus the 2 deferrals). Therefore, staff recommends that the item be deferred until the May 3, 1994 hearing to allow the Committee and staff the opportunity to properly review the submittal through the standard review process. Bob Holloway, the project engineer, explained that the applicant had been in negotiations for the sale of a large portion of the tract during the time of the first Subdivision Committee meeting, and that this had necessitated a total re -design of the plat and consequently the request for the deferral. Now, he continued, the design is finalized and he has been in contact with the City Engineering office and, he advised, there are no issues to be resolved. He related that he had simply not been reminded of the Committee meetings, and had forgotten to attend; that it was an oversight and not a matter of not wanting to attend. Commissioner Oleson commented that the applicant should make the required presentation to the Committee. Commissioner Nicholson commented that there should be consistency in enforcement of the requirement for making a presentation to the Subdivision Committee. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Holloway if there would be a problem with a deferral, to which Mr. Holloway responded that there would be no problem. Chairperson Chachere asked the applicant if he would propose a deferral. Mr. Holloway responded that he thought that all requirements had been met and was unaware of any problems. He asked for clarification of any problems. Commissioner Nicholson responded that Mr. Holloway needed to attend the Subdivision Committee meeting to find out what the problems are and to work out any problems with staff at that time. Mr. Holloway then asked the Commission to defer the hearing on the request until the May 3, 1994 meeting. 5 "May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1003 A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing on the request, and the motion passed with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) The applicant, Kelton Brown, and his engineer, Robert Holloway, were present. Staff presented the request, indicating that the configuration of the internal street and lots had undergone substantial change since the original submission. Staff and the Committee reviewed with Mr. Brown and Mr. Holloway the comments in the discussion outline. Mr. Holloway confirmed that the name of the subdivision is to be Shackleford Industrial Park; not Shackleford Road Industrial Park. He also confirmed that the request for a waiver of street improvements along Shackleford Road had been deleted; the applicant will make the required Master Street Plan improvements on Shackleford Road. Staff pointed out the deficiencies of the plan: that contours are to be at 2 foot intervals, not 5 foot; and, that the plan must show that Shackleford Road is to be built, and show the width to be constructed. The Committee members confirmed with Mr. Holloway that he had reviewed the discussion outline and had no further questions. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff reported that there are no remaining issues; that all additions and modifications to the plans had been made as required by the Subdivision Committee. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 11