HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0157-M Staff AnalysisMay 16, 1995
ITEM NO. : 13 _FILE NO.: S-156-M
NAME: HOOPER BOND ADDITION, LOT 3 -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the north side of Shackleford Dr., between
Shackleford Rd. and W. Markham St.
DEVELOPER•
JIM DUNLAP
409 N. University Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72205
664-6980
AREA• 1.85 ACRES
ZONING• C-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
ENGINEER•
Pat McGetrick
MCGETRICR ENGINEERING
11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 722111
223-9900
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES: Restaurants
The appellant proposes a site plan for review which contains two
restaurant buildings on a 1.85 acre lot, with 98 parking spaces.
The eastern -most building is to contain 5,380 square feet; the
western -most building, 4,000 square feet. Two drive approaches
off of Shackleford Dr. are to be provided. A 52 foot landscape
buffer is proposed along the north property line, except, because
of the location of the dumpster, the buffer area is reduced to 40
feet. No variance are requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review and approval by the Planning Commission of a site
plan is requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently undeveloped, but has been prepared for
development. The site is a lot in an existing commercial
subdivision.
The current zoning of the site is C-3, and the C-3 zoning
district extends to all properties to the east and west, and
across Shackleford Dr. to the south. There is a residential
neighborhood, zoned R-2, abutting the site to the north.
May 16, 1995
7BDIV_I S I_ON
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-156-M
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The Public Works staff comments that: 1) the site plan has
some technical decencies which need attention; 2) a sidewalk
must be constructed along Shackleford Dr.; 3) a stormwater
detention analysis must be provided; and, 4) a grading
permit may be required.
Water Works comments that on -site fire protection may be
required.
Wastewater comments that sewer is available.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. did not provided comments.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal
without comment.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
The Fire Department commented that all interior streets or
driveways must be a minim of 20 feet in width. Interior
fire hydrants may be required.
D. ISSUE_S1_LEGALLTECHNICALIDESIGN:
The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments that:
1) Sec. 36-130 specifies the requirements for Site
Plan reviews, and the following, not included in
the submittal, must be provided: a) the proposed
perimeter treatment of the property, indicating
screening materials to be used; b) a schematic
landscaping plan; c) a topographic cross-section;
and, d) quantitative data, including the building
coverage and floor areas.
Sec. 36-502(3)c requires that, for restaurant
uses, one parking space for each 100 square feet
of gross floor area be provided. The total
building area is 9,380 square feet, requiring 94
parking spaces. Parking for 98 vehicles is
provided.
Sec. 31-13 requires site plan review for
"...construction involving two (2) or more
buildings..." on a site. Because the proposed
project contains two buildings, review of the site
by the Planning Commission is required.
2
May 16, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM N 1(Cont.)- FILE NO.: S--I56---M
2) Landscape review comments that: the land use
buffer along the north property line exceed the
11.5' width required; . the street buffer along
Shackleford Dr. meets the 11.5' average width
required,'although it is 6' in width most of its
length; a 6' high opaque screen is requited along
the northern site perimeter; and, an 8' high
opaque wood fence or wall will be required on
three sides of the dumpster.
E. ANALYSIS:
The site plan substantially meets the requirements of the
Ordinance, and there are only minor deficiencies.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(APRIL 27, 1995)
Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff
reviewed with the Committee the proposed development plan. The
Committee reviewed with Mr. McGetrick and with staff the comments
contained in the discussion outline. With only minimal
discussion, the Committee forwarded the site plan to the full
Commission for approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff reported that all issues had been
recommended approval of the site plan.
the Consent Agenda for approval, and was
approval of the Consent Agenda with the
0 abstentions, and 0 absent.
(MAY 16, 1995)
resolved, and staff
The item was included on
approved with the
vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays,
3