Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutstaff report aprilApril 2, 1998 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: LU98-14-03 NAME: Land Use Plan Amendment - Geyer Springs East LOCATION: 9823 Hilaro Springs REQUEST: Park/Open Space to Light Industrial SOURCE: Michael G. Pinner PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Geyer Springs East District from Park/Open Space to Light Industrial. LI provides for light warehouse, distribution or storage uses, and/or other industrial uses that are developed in a well-designed "park like" setting. RECENT AMENDMENTS: September 1997 a change from Single Family to Multi -family for the apartments at American Manor. MASTER STREET PLAN: Hilaro Springs is shown as a minor arterial on the plan. CURRENT ZONING AND ACREAGE: The property is zoned R-2 and is 6.2± acres. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notice was sent to the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association. No comments were received by print time. STAFF REPORT: Shown on the land use plan as Parks/Open Space the property is just to the north of the city limits. The site is removed from other development in the area and is currently in use as a contractors storage yard and office. The area surrounding this property is zoned R-2 and shown on the plan as either Parks/Open Space or Single Family. This property is located in the floodway. It is also shown on the Master Parks Plan for Priority Two acquisition. April 2, 1998 4 (cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-14-03 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends the property remain as Park/Open Space on the land use plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 1998) Brian Minyard of Planning staff presented the case. The property is in Park/Open space, it is a priority two acquisition for parks and that the property is in the floodway. We, as staff, do not recommend changing the Land Use Plan. Mr. Jerry Fitzpatrick, employee of the applicant, presented their case for changing the Land Use Plan. Mr. Mike Pinner, owner and applicant, spoke briefly. No one else spoke in favor or opposition. Commissioner Earnest referenced a letter from Steve Loop, Floodplain Engineer, Public Works, to Pat Herman stating "The property's location within the floodway of the Little Fourche Creek will require that the City prohibit any new development or substantial improvements, unless it is first demonstrated (through hydrological and hydraulic analysis performed by registered engineer) that such improvements will not increase the height of the 100 -year base flood elevations established on the FIRM Panel." Following was a discussion of whether the property lies within the floodway or floodplain and a discussion of the direction of the expansion. Steve Giles, representing the City Attorney's office, stated that "if the structural improvements you are proposing are in the floodway, no matter if the planning commission rezones the property, you cannot develop because it jeopardizes our flood insurance program. If it is in the floodplain, you may develop with the guidelines stated in the engineer's letter. We need to know that before we can take an action." When asked for a clarification on the floodway or flood plain, Ms. Herman "deferred to Public Works that are the experts and that it does lie in the floodway." Mr. Giles stated that generally to remove floodway encumbrances, the developer is required to do channel improvements. They have to get an engineer qualified in hydraulics to certify that those improvements have been done and that is given to the Corps of Engineers and they send it to Washington for a map restudy and redraw. It is complicated, but it has been done. We may not be able to help you. �A April 2, 1998 ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-14-03 Mr. Jim Lawson, Planning and Development Director, asked "if the Planning Commission would have an opinion on changing the Land Use Plan to Light Industrial, regardless of the floodway matters because if these gentlemen go and do all of the engineering work and spend a lot of money, and come back and we say that we do not like it and deny it. we need to get a reaction from the commission.,, Larry Lichty, Commissioner, questioned how did they get there? Hill Putman, Commissioner, questioned how long have they been there? Mr. Fitzpatrick answered that they had been there 8 years. Mr. Pinner stated that there was a construction company there before us that was a non -conforming use and that we could stay as long as we are in business. Mr. Lichty said that "I hate to think that you have a viable business for eight years and want to expand and are going to be prohibited. I do not have any problem in giving a signal to what the commission thinks relative to the expansion of the business." Mr. Lawson suggested that we change to LI the area outside the floodway. If after research, all the property lies in the floodway, the plan would not be changed. You must have the engineering study. Mr. Lichty asked if a conditional approval could be granted only until the business ceases operation. Mr. Lawson proposed that the Land Use Plan Amendment could be denied, the applicant should come back for a PID, but we would have to deal with the floodway issues, that is preferable. Mr. Putman, asked for a Mr. Lawson to restate and clarify what he had just said. Mr. Lawson responded, "If they are serious, they could do an engineering study, come in with a PID, and deal with it as an expansion of a non -conforming use and not change the Land Use Plan." Mr. Pinner stated that they were willing to take the risk. Mr. Lichty said to the applicant that he must have more information. ,I am looking for a way for all of us to be happy. Get the engineering study, come back with a PID, and leave the Land Use Plan as is." Mr. Lawson explained the PID process and stated that the applicant will have to spend engineering money, that is your only route. 3 April 2, 1998 ITEM NO.: 4 (cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-14-03 Mr. Fitzpatrick questioned the validity of the FEMA maps and asked if they blanketed the area with floodway status. Mr. Lawson stated that that was a possibility. Mr. Lichty stated that Mr. Mizan Rahman asked if they could expand in a different direction. Following was a discussion of the direction of the water flow. Mr. Lichty asked Mr. Pinner to approach the dais and explain an exhibit and elevation differences. Commissioner Herb Hawn asked if "our actions require Parks and Recreation to purchase property in one year?" Mr. Lawson said no. He also went on to ask if the applicant would consider withdrawing. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if they had to have an engineer and how long would that take. Mr. Rahman asked what the timetable of the applicant was. After hearing the answer, he stated "You will not have time to do the study. I worked with the gentleman that you bought the property from many years ago. If it goes to the Corps and to Washington, look for one year or two. You could acquire the floodplain land next door, providing it is buildable. When asked, the applicant stated that he was willing to withdraw the petition. Mr. Lichty asked for a motion to withdraw. Mr. Pinner asked if he could sell this property. Mr. Lichty stated "As Parks." Mr. Giles said, "You have a non -conforming use on that property, I cannot act as your attorney or advise you, but generally speaking, you can sell the property as is, the next person will have problems getting flood insurance and there may be restrictions on the title insurance and you still have a use that you cannot expand." Mr. David Scherer of Public Works said that they could get flood insurance, and we could rezone, but the applicant could not make significant improvements to a building located in the floodway. If proved to be in the floodway, they can make minor alterations. A motion made to withdraw the application was made by Mr. Hawn. The Motion was seconded. The motion passed with 11 for and 0 against. 4 April 2, 1998 ITEM NO.: 4 _(cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-14-03 STAFF UPDATE: This item was withdrawn at the February 19, 1998 meeting for further clarification as to whether the property was or was not in the floodplain or floodway. The owner believes that he now has proof that the land is in the floodplain, not the floodway, and asked for a rehearing on the item. See attached memo from Steve Loop, Public Works, dated March 10, 1998 which states the contrary. Planning staff still recommends that the property remain as Park/Open Space on the Land Use Plan. 6i o " ❑ 3 i ao d• P dad 4 [� � SF 0 o.0 ❑ ° °n` ❑ . q a o o a° a s �a ooQaopQOQ ° a o o opo 0 b ° 0 �p � Deo o ❑ Q � �ar�or.�oaaoor�000Qr.�o �j �jp�q� D ° �Oq oaQ��a4�pp�aQao� o �tg�Q ,:Z3 �o p 15 CD � Plan Amendment PKIOS LU98-1 4-03 9823 HM ARO SPRINGS PK/OS TO LI 4 d * TRS T-2sai2m_ Pt•- soa D _ 1a Vicinity Map WARD �� Item No. 4 U U p O o �0 4 0 CS 1=0 ° Cu 04 Q �C3pao0� R2 �p D D❑ o Qo oopC��C?po4 �❑ 0 O Q ED Q ° a � ❑�] ❑ d any e� Opp o pyo o p Q Q 0C3C3oC3=nGoCDC3CD CoQ 4. Op o Oofl QadCl J�ri&r mC3oE3 F-3 r 1 ° o R2 C Elor34r-34Y aQiaoaoo� ❑ a � Ca�pB o d p d Q d 04 p O 0 0�� a p � Existing Zoning LU98-14-03 9823 HMARO SPRINGS * TRS T15 R17W5_ PD .— 14 V- Soo, Vicinity Map WARD Item No. 4 Jf,vn - 7 City of Little Rock _ _ Engineering [ii►►ision Department of 701 West Markham Public Works Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1300 371-4811 FAX 371-4460 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM PAT HERMAN, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPT. STEVE LOOP, FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR 9 FLOODPLAIN DETERMINATION - 9823 HILARO SPRINGS ROAD JANUARY 23, 1998 The above -referenced property appears to lie within Flood Zone AE of FIRM Community - Panel Number 050181 0022E, with an effective date of November 3, 1993. A Panel copy is attached for your use. Existing structures on the property are Pre -FIRM, and therefor the City has no elevation data regarding the reference (lowest) floor elevation or lowest adjacent grade elevation. The property's location within the floodway of Little Fourche Creek will require that the City prohibit any new development or substantial improvements, unless it is first demonstrated (through hydrological and hydraulic analysis performed by a registered engineer) that such improvements will not increase the height of the 100 -year base flood elevations established on the FIRM Panel. Please call if you have any questions. We're Proud of Our Works! City of Little Rock Department of City Hall -Room 108 Parks and Recreation 500 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1495 MEMORANDUM TO: Pat Herman FROM: ark Webre DATE: January 26, 1998 SUBJECT: Land Use Change for 9823 Hilaro Springs Tkm -#-7 501-371-4770/Fax 501-371-6832 Parks has reviewed the proposed land use change for 9823 Hilaro Springs property, which will be considered at the February 19, 1998 agenda. We also surveyed the site for any significant attributes on and around the property. A large portion, if not all, of this property is located in a floodway. As we understand the floodway policy, property located in the floodway shall be dedicated fee simple to the City of Little Rock. Parks will be pleased to add this property to our open space inventory if this is the case. We would like to preserve the property for storm mitigation, wildlife enhancement, pollution mitigation, trailway development, etc. However, if monetary acquisition is required, then we do not have the budget and cannot recommend to the Board a fee simple acquisition, due to the competing infrastructure demands on the City. If you have any questions or need further assistance with this, I'd be pleased to help. cc: Bill Bunten Bryan Day ti•!c -w� City of Little Rock Engineering Division Department of 701 West Markham Public Works Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1300 371-4811 FAX 371-4460 10 1 DIVA -1083 ►1Tif►ri TO: PAT HERMAN, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPT. FROM: STEVE LOOP, FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR 5&i SUBJECT: FLOODPLAIN DETERMINATION - 9823 HILARO SPRINGS ROAD DATE: MARCH 10, 1998 Please reference my previous memorandum dated January 23, 1998. Subsequently, I met with Jerry Fitzpatrick at the site and reviewed improvements. We discussed the status of the current mapping, and I also visited with the Little Rock District, Army Corps of Engineers. Corps work maps dated December 1986 included a floodplain restudy of the subject property and are the basis of the City's current FIRM, dated 1993. This FIRM supercedes the earlier County FIRM, dated 1983. The restudy was performed to assess the impacts from fill and channel construction by the previous property owner. The channel work and fill were not sufficient to remove the floodway from the vicinity of the existing structure, which remains within Flood Zone AE. Again, the property's location within the floodway of Little Fourche Creek will require that the City prohibit any new development or substantial improvements, unless it is first demonstrated that such improvements will not increase the height of the 100 -year base flood elevations. From Public Works' review of the available information, it appears that additional physical property improvements would be necessary in order to adequately demonstrate no increase in flood heights. We're Proud of Our Works! ADDENDUM TO AGENDA LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING AND PLANNING AGENDA APRIL 2, 1998, ITEM #4, page 5. LU98-14-03 Land Use Amendment - Geyer Springs East District - 9823 Hilaro Springs Road This sheet replaces the sheet found in the printed agenda. STAFF UPDATE: This item was withdrawn at the February 19, 1998 meeting for further clarification as to whether the property was or was not in the floodplain or floodway. The owner believes that he now has proof that the a portion of the land is in the floodplain, not the floodway, and asked for a rehearing on the item. See attached memo from Steve Loop, Public Works, dated March 10, 1998 which states the contrary. Several meetings have transpired between City staffs and the owner. The development plans have been modified and instead of expanding the building to the east, a separate structure has been proposed to the north. This is an area that is located in the floodplain. A memo to confirm this fact is forthcoming from Public Works and will include a sketch of the area that is not in the floodway. Planning staff still recommends that the property remain as Park/Open Space on the Land Use Plan. Staff does believe that we should foster growth of existing businesses and therefore would encourage the filing of a Planned Industrial Development (PID) of a non- conforming existing use to fulfill their needs for expansion at a later date.