Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 letter from Scherer on street issueni,,n LI _j AUL IC, 1 ( - 'VI I I 0 Ll I ILC NUUN rW) NU. UUIJ(IggUU F2 q,��5y- ? City of Little Rock Engineering Division ixI�? u' Department of 701 West Markham Public Works Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1300 371-4811 FAX 371-4460 April 26, 1999 Mr. Ben McMinn P.O. Box 2438 Little Rock, AR 72203 RE: Property East of Capital Lakes Estates Dear Mr. McMinn: After discussion with Richard Wood, the following facts appear to be relevant to your client's access to Cooper Orbit Road. Your client will have access to eXisting road until Capital Lakes. Estates petitions the Plann=ing Commission and then the Board of Directors for closure, Your client can request as a condition of closure dedication of a new right-of-way to provide access to property and request a preliminary plat f=ling amendment to coincide m ith right-of-way abandonment filing. The f0ma of street access would require staff review and approval. With in excess Of eighty acres accessing street, preliminary recommendations are for 60 foot of'. right-of-way and a =rlinimum of 31 foot pavement. (lack of curb to back of curb) with side�valk.s. Construction would Lie %A�th platfir'ng of adjacem property. Street NVould need to conform to Master Street Plan standards_ I hope these points address the concerns of your client. Should you have questions. you may contact =ne at 371-4831. Sincerely, David L. Scherer, :P.E, Civil Engineering Manager DLS/ddp cc: Richard Wood Robert Fru-eigh Civil Design; Inc. C:'d4t +�+rAUDUOS: iaUlECi^"��v n� M,NWn• CdD;W Ltki e.raka "We're Proud Uf Our Works!" f2' LVED 08:46 FAX 501 663 5408 ✓m 1 July 11, 2002 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: Z -6120-F Owner: Capitol Lakes Management, LLC Applicant: The Hathaway Group THE HATHAWAY GROUP WJ V V V Page] of 3 Location: Along Cooper Orbit Road, approximately 0.4 mile south of Kanis Road Request: To revoke a PRD (Tracts C-1 and D, Capitol Lakes Estates) and rezone Tracts C-1 and C-2, Capitol Lakes Estates from MF -12 to R-2. Purpose: Single Family Residential Development Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING 71.1,dlo t, North - Undeveloped; zoned R-2 and The Oasis development; zoned R-2. 0es(. — South - Undeveloped; zoned R-2 East - Undeveloped; zoned R-2 West - Undeveloped; zoned R-2 and MF- roposed PRD) A. PUBLIC WORKS NTS: 1. Provide legal access to landowner to the east, with 70Ao j1 -/v & � wit//P�+•31 �I�-fir�.� O � ifo- alopment of this av& 2. Previous y approved uses of land for regional stormwater detention and new C ✓.t arterial right-of-way must be maintained or alternatives approved by Public Works. A,14 AL A 0,,W- B. dB. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: ` �"`0-70 acts! All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and the Spring Valley Manor, Parkway Place and Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge - Neighborhood Associations were notified of the rezoning request. Staff could identify no residents within 300 feet of the site. FA 'VwU, FILE NO.: Z-612 Owner: Capitol Lakes Management, LLC Applicant: The Hathaway Group Location: Along Cooper Orbit Road, approximately 0.4 mile south of Kanis Road Request: To revoke a PRD (Tracts C-1 and D, Capitol Lakes Estates) and rezone Tracts C-1 and C-2, Capitol Lakes Estates from MF -12 to R-2. Purpose: Single Family Residential Development Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North — Undeveloped; zoned R-2 and The Oasis development; zoned R-2 South — Undeveloped; zoned R-2 East — Undeveloped; zoned R-2 West — Undeveloped; zoned R-2 and MF -12 (proposed PRD) A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. Provide legal access to landowner to the east, with development of this property. 2. Previously approved uses of land for regional stormwater detention and new arterial right-of-way must be maintained or alternatives approved by Public Works. B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. LE NO.: Z -6120-F this agenda) has also been filed to change Tracts C-1 and C=2 from Low Density Residential to Single Family Residential. Staff is supportive of the PRD revocation and rezoning request. Staff feels that the applicant's plan to concentrate all of the permitted, multifamily:. units within the Capitol Lakes Estates development to Tract B, thereby resulting in the down -zoning of Tracts C-1 and C-2 to R-2, is appropriate. The proposed R-2 zoning for Tracts C-1 and C-2 will be compatible with all of the adjacent properties. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested PRD revocation and rezoning of Tracts C-1 and C-2, Capitol Lakes Estates to R-2, subject to compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 11, 2002) Jim Hathaway and Joe White were present, representing the application. Staff briefly described the proposed rezoning with a recommendation of approval. There were several persons present with concerns. This application was discussed simultaneously with Items LU02-18-03 and Z -6120=E. Jim Hathaway addressed the Commission in support of the rezoning application. Eulalia Araoz, property owner immediately east of Tract C, addressed the Commission with concerns relating to access to her property with the development of Capitol Lakes Estates. Mr. Hathaway noted that with the final plat of Phase I, Capitol Lakes Estates, a portion of Tract D would be deeded to the Araozes for access. He also noted that with the development of Tract C, a public street would be constructed to the Araoz's property. Rusty Sparks, representing the Spring Valley Manor property owners, discussed the history of the Capitol Lakes Estates development. He noted support for the downzoning of Tract C to R-2. He primarily discussed issues related to the PRD zoning of Tract B. Technical issues associated with the PRD zoning of Tract B, Capitol Lakes Estates were discussed at length. There was a motion to approve the R-2 zoning as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. The application was approved. ........... , r ILE NO.: Z--E�12D-E= (Cont.) Ms. Eulalia Araoz spoke in opposition of the development. She stated her Property adjoined the development to the east with frontage to Cooper Orbit Road. She stated with the realignment of Cooper Orbit Road to the new Rushmore Avenue her property would no longer hive access to a public street. Ms. Araoz stated according to Public Works staff her property would be- provided a pave access through the proposed development. Mr. Hathaway stated he had been in contact with Ms. Araoz's attorney and furnished him with copies of agreements made when the property was rezoned to PRD. He stated the agreement at the time of preliminary platting for Capitol Lakes Estates a commitment was made to allow the Araoz's access through a deed and not just an easement. He stated upon completion of Phase I the Araoz's would be given a deed to sufficient land to allow a road into their property: He stated further more when Tract C was rezoned to PRD a second agreement was made to allow access to the southern portion of their property, from Rushmore Avenue. He stated the Araoz's would have two (2) points of access to their property both of which were tied to development of surrounding land. Mr, Rusty Sparks spoke in opposition of the application as filed. He stated he was representing the. Capitol Lakes Estates Property Owner's Association. Mr. Sparks stated there ere several concerns with the development: He stated those were traffic, ingress and egress from the site, the existing narrow bridge located in the County on Cooper Orbit Road and the lack of landscaping shown on the site plan. He stated the developer had not furnished grading plans as were previously provided. He stated the site was a difficult site to develop due to the terrain. He stated grading plans were essential to determine the cuts and fills required for building the site. Mr. Sparks stated as a part of the previous approval a 20 -foot buffer was required along Rushmore Avenue. He stated the current proposal did not indicate a buffer. He stated the residents desire was to maintain the rural character of the area and the buffer was the only assurance the character of the area would be maintained. He stated the residents were unclear as to the height of the buildings. He stated the residents had been told the maximum building height would be 35 -feet but the buildings proposed were three story. He stated stressed the importance of clarification of building heights. He stated the neighborhood was opposed to a major entrance onto Rushmore Avenue. He stated the development would require two entrances but both those should be located on West Kanis Road. X ROCKET PROPERTIES, LLC 8332 Windsor Valley Drive North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116 501-835-2878 • Fax: 501-834-0268 December 4, 2003 To: Little Rock Planning Commission Re: File No.: Z -61.20-I; December 4, 2003 Agenda Item No. 29 Capitol Hills Apartments Revised Long -form PD -R Ladies and Gentlemen: Rocket Properties, LLC has purchased eighty acres (S '/2 of the NE 'la of Section 7, T -1-N, R -13-W, Pulaski County, Arkansas, referred to herein as the "Rocket Property") adjacent to and immediately east of the Capitol Hills property. The Rocket Property was formerly owned by Carlos Araoz, Aurelia Araoz and Benjamin McMinn. Rocket Properties, LLC has reviewed numerous zoning files and preliminary plats dealing with the Capitol Lakes property along Cooper Orbit road. There are several references to access to the Rocket Property, including notes on a preliminary plat which require conveyance of a portion of a Tract D to the owner of the Rocket Property for purposes of access. Public Works has at least once, in its comments in Pile No_ Z -6120-F, stated that a condition to approval should be to "Provide legal access to landowner to the east, with development of this property." Attached are two letters dealing with the issues of access which may be germane to the subject. The construction of a road as described in the letter from the city's civil engineering manager may not be feasible at the planned location from either a financial or an engineering standpoint. This access appears to run straight into the floodway, and directly into a creek. Although access has been assured in several forms, the exact nature, location and provision is, at best, unclear. The survey which Rocket obtained in conjunction with its purchase reflects that the existing right of way of Cooper Orbit road touches the Rocket property. This portion of Cooper Orbit would technically be in the county and not in the city of Little Rock. The Rocket Property is well -served by the existing Cooper Orbit road. It is not clear whether closure of Cooper Orbit is being proposed at this time, or whether the closure is necessitated by the construction of Rushmore. It is not clear whether the city can close the portion of the road which is in the county. Rocket does not want its property landlocked by the actions taken today. Rocket would prefer that its current point of public access be maintained generally at the current location on Cooper Orbit, or that alternative access by mutual agreement be reserved prior to any action which either closes Cooper Orbit or makes closure a foregone conclusion. Sincerely yours, Rocket Properties, LLC Ronald C. Tyne H. Baker Kurrus ANDREW V. FRANCIS, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 2311 BISCAYNE DRIVE, SUITE 205 ANDREW V. FRANCIS LITTLE ROCK, AR 72227 GA1,11LA\'FPp(l�SBCGLOBAL,NCT TELEPHONE (501) 954-7390 FACSIMILE (501) 954-7385 January 14, 2005 H. Baker Kurrus Rocket Properties, LLC 2024 Arkansas Valley Drive, Suite 408 Little Rock, AR 72212 Via Facsimile — 954.9839 and U. S. Mail RE: Capitol Lakes Management, LLC ("Capitol Lakes") — Request by Rocket Properties, LLC ("Rocket") for access to Cooper Orbit Road Dear Baker: I have received your letter of the 13`h regarding Rocket's western access to the 160 acres it owns adjacent to the eastern boundary of Capitol Lakes Estates. Capitol Lakes is happy to meet with you and Ron Tyne to discuss this and any other issues. I would like to schedule a meeting with you, Ron Tyne, Jim Hathaway, Jay DeHaven and myself as soon as convenient after we have had a chance to review Rocket's proposed development plan for this property. However, I do want to address a few of the statements in your letter. First of all, I think it needs to be clearly stated that Rocket does have access to its property. This is from the east, through Brodie Creek. It might be less costly for Rocket to access its property from Capitol Lakes Estates instead of building a bridge over Brodie Creek from the east. Nevertheless, there is no not even the barricading of Cooper Orbit Road, which is preventing Rocket from accessing its property. I have never offered to "afford Rocket adequate access in the future" as you state in your letter. At the recent Little Rock Planning Commission meeting where you and I talked, I did state that Capitol Lakes would sit down with Rocket and discuss the access issues before filing an application to close the legal right of way for Cooper Orbit Road. I think the record will bear this out. You mention that there were references to providing access to the Rocket property in what I assume are the City of Little Rock's planning and zoning files for Capitol Lakes Estates. I think Dana Carney from the City of Little Rock made it abundantly clear that the access which the City envisions and has approved will be through Lincoln Street, as shown on the preliminary plat for Capitol Lakes Estates. This plat and road plan have been extensively reviewed by the City and approved by both the Little Rock Planning Commission and Board of Directors. While Rocket may have since made development plans under an assumption that there would be a different Page 2 H. Baker Kun-us January 14, 2005 access, this has been contrary to the plans which the City approved long before Rocket acquired this property. There is no City of Little Rock requirement for Capitol Lakes to provide any other access to Rocket's property. There is no agreement between Capitol Lakes and Rocket or any of its predecessors in title to provide any other access to Rocket's property. To the extent that Rocket has inade development plans under an assumption that there would be a different access, Rocket has done so at its own risk. Capitol Lakes anticipates no objection to Rocket's plans showing the extension of Woodlands Trail to Lincoln Street, as platted. However, I anticipate that Capitol Lakes would have to object to any attempt by Rocket to extend Woodlands Trail to .Cooper Orbit Road at any other point. In the barricading of Cooper Orbit Road, Capitol Lakes has followed all applicable City of Little Rock practice and procedures. Capitol Lakes did not notify Rocket of the barricading because it was not required to do so. I respectfully disagree with your belief that the.public was either required or denied due process at the time the street was barricaded. As I mentioned earlier, Rocket has always had access to its property from the east. I look forward to meeting with you and Ron to discuss the abandonment of Cooper Orbit Road and any other issues. Thank you very much and please call,me with any questions. Cordially, ANDREW V. FRANCIS, P.A. i An rew V. Francis /avf cc: Capitol Lakes Management, LLC Mr. Jim Hathaway, CRE