Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4080-A Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -4080-A NAME: BUNNELL'S -- SHORT -FORM PCD (REVOCATION) LOCATION: At the southeast corner of Cantrell Rd. and North St., at 1517 Cantrell Rd. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER: ORIGINAL APPLICANT: FRANK WHITBECK SIGNATURE LIFE INSURANCE CO. JOE BUNNELL & FRANK WHITBECK P. O. Box 3437 Savers Federal & Loan Building Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 0.43 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PCD ORIGINAL ZONING: O-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: Downtown (5) CENSUS TRACT: 9 BACKGROUND: By letter dated October 4, 1983, Frank Whitbeck, owner of the referenced property, asked for approval of a PCD. His letter outlined the proposal: the eastern -most lot, Lot 5, with an existing home on it, was proposed to be used as an antique shop, but approval of other C-1 uses was also requested; and, the western -most lot, Lot 6, which had an existing -off-premise- outdoor advertising sign on it and a parking lot, was proposed to retain the sign, plus have improvements made to the parking lot to serve the business use on the adjoining lot. The applicant proposed to provide the required turn -around for the existing parking lot, and to border the paved area with railroad ties. He indicated that the entire area would be landscaped. Subsequent- ly, on December 6, 1983, the requested PCD was approved by the Board of Directors, in Ordinance No. 14,557. The existing 0-3 zoning was changed to PCD. STAFF UPDATE: The present condition of the site is: the residential structure on Lot 5 is gone, all that remains being the concrete slab (there is no "landscaping" anywhere on this lot); and, on Lot 6, the paved parking lot remains (there is grass on the lot, plus some red tip photianias under and in line with the sign) but the proposed modifications to it have not been made (i.e., it is not bordered with railroad ties and the turn -around was not constructed). The concrete building which was located on Lot 6 at the time of the approval is gone. The outdoor advertising sign, which was on the site when the PCD was approved, is still FILE ND.: Z -4080-A (Cont.1 there. No final plan was submitted and there have been no "improvements" to the site (except for the razing the buildings). There have been no building permits issued, and the proposed use was, evidently, never put in place. Ordinance No. 14,557 states: "...this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force upon... approval of the (final) plan by the Planning Commission." Section 36-454(d) of the Code of Ordinances states: "The applicant shall have three (3) years from the date of the preliminary plan approval to submit the final...plan." Section 36-458(a) states: The Planning Commission may recommend to the Board of Directors that any PUD ... approval be revoked... if no building permit has been issued within two (2) years from the recording date of the final plan...." No "final plan" was approved, either by staff or by the Planning Commission, and development of the PRD has never been undertaken. The existing residential structure, which was to be used for an antique shop is no longer on the site. Since the "off -premise" outdoor advertising sign was in place prior to the PCD zoning (it was a non -conforming use at that time), it is unaffected by the revocation of the PCD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the PCD be revoked, and that the 0-3 zoning of the site, which was in place prior to the rezoning to PCD, be reinstated. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff reported that a letter had been owner, indicating that he had had an for several months, and that he asked PCD be deferred until the June 6, 199 recommended the requested deferral be was included in the Consent Agenda fo was approved with the vote of 10 ayes abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) received from the property out-of-town trip scheduled that the revocation of his 6 Commission meeting. Staff approved and the deferral r Deferral. The deferral , 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 (JUNE 6, 1996) The Chairman asked that the Staff present this item for consideration on the regular agenda. Staff determined that the applicant, Mr. Frank Whitbeck, was not in attendance. The Commission determined to place the item at the end of the agenda and awaited Mr. Whitbeck's attendance. At a later point in the agenda, the Chairman asked that this item be again placed on the Pq FILE NO.: Z -4.080-A (Cont. regular agenda for discussion. Again, staff noticed that there was no one present representing the application. A brief discussion between staff and the Commission determined that this item be deferred again until the next regular scheduled meeting, which is July 18, 1996 and that the applicant, Mr. Whitbeck, be instructed to be in attendance or the Commission would act upon the matter of revocation and forward the item to the Board of Directors without further comment. A motion was made to this effect. The motion was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) There was no discussion of this item at the Subdivision Committee meeting. However, a follow-up discussion of this subject with the City's Attorney Office with Stephen Giles indicated that the applicants' attorney, Mr. Christopher Barrier, has indicated a recommended solution. This solution is supported by the City Attorney and Staff at this point. The action that will be recommended at the Planning Commission would be that the portion of the current PCD that is occupied by the billboard and landscaped area be continued and maintained as a valid PCD lot. The balance of the property which is vacant lying to the east would be returned to its original 0-3 General Office classification. This action would resolve the problem as it currently exist, which is the owner has no use of the vacant lot in as much as it is tied to a PCD with buildings that no longer occupy the property. His primary concern was the temporary continuance of the billboard until such time as he has a development for the total site. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Chairman recognized Staff and asked that they offer their recommendation and an update on the Bunnell's Short -Form PCD. Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief history of the application and instructed the Commission that the applicant and staff had reached an understanding as for a solution of the revocation ordinance so as to serve the best interest of the property owner in retaining one of the uses existing on the property. Wood pointed out that the original PCD provided for a billboard on the westernmost lot at the street corner. Wood stated that in discussion with Mr. Christopher Barrier, attorney for the owner, this billboard site being one lot -should be retained as a PCD and the remaining property be returned to an 0-3 classification through the process of revocation. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Barrier. Mr. Barrier indicated the application as presented by Staff was as he and his client 3 FILE NO.: Z -4080-A (Cont.)- understood Cont. understood the proposal at this time. He indicated that they agree the item should go to the Board for the appropriate ordinance. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined that it would be appropriate to act on this case as recommended by the Staff and send the item to the City Board for final action. A motion was made to recommend to the City Board that the 0-3 restoration on the easternmost portion of the property be approved and the billboard site being the western lot be retained as a PD -C. A vote on the motion produced 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. 4 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -4080-A NAME: BUNNELL'S -- SHORT -FORM PCD (REVOCATION) LOCATION: At the southeast corner of Cantrell Rd. and North St., at 1517 Cantrell Rd. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER: ORIGINAL APPLICANT: FRANK WHITBECK SIGNATURE LIFE INSURANCE CO. JOE BUNNELL & FRANK WHITBECK P. O. Box 3437 Savers Federal & Loan Building Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 0.43 ACRES CURRENT ZONING: PCD PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: 9 BACKGROUND: NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 Downtown (5) FT. NEW STREET: 0 ORIGINAL ZONING: 0-3 By letter dated October 4, 1983, Frank Whitbeck, owner of the referenced property, asked for approval of a PCD. His letter outlined the proposal: the eastern -most lot, Lot 5, with an existing home on it, was proposed to be used as an antique shop, but approval of other C-1 uses was also requested; and, the western -most lot, Lot 6, which had an existing -off-premise- outdoor advertising sign on it and a parking lot, was proposed to retain the sign, plus have improvements made to the parking lot to serve the business use on the adjoining lot. The applicant proposed to provide the required turn -around for the existing parking lot, and to border the paved area with railroad ties. He indicated that the entire area would be landscaped. Subsequent- ly, on December 6, 1983, the requested PCD was approved by the Board of Directors, in Ordinance No. 14,557. The existing 0-3 zoning was changed to PCD. STAFF UPDATE: The present condition of the site is: the residential structure on Lot 5 is gone, all that remains being the concrete slab (there is no "landscaping" anywhere on this lot); and, on Lot 6, the paved parking lot remains (there is grass on the lot, plus some red tip photianias under and in line with the sign) but the proposed modifications to it have not been made (i.e., it is not bordered with railroad ties and the turn -around was not constructed). The concrete building which was located on Lot 6 at the time of the approval is gone. The outdoor advertising July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO_: Z -4080-A sign, which was on the site when the PCD was approved, is still there. No final plan was submitted and there have been no ••improvements- to the site (except for the razing the buildings). There have been no building permits issued, and the proposed use was, evidently, never put in place. Ordinance No. 14,557 states: "...this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force upon... approval of the (final) plan by the Planning Commission." Section 36-454(d) of the Code of Ordinances states: "The applicant shall have three (3) years from the date of the preliminary plan approval to submit the final ... plan.- Section 36-458(a) states: "The Planning Commission may recommend to the Board of Directors that any PUD ... approval be revoked... if no building permit has been issued within two (2) years from the recording date of the final plan...." No "final plan- was approved, either by staff or by the Planning Commission, and development of the PRD has never been undertaken. The existing residential structure, which was to be used for an antique shop is no longer on the site. Since the "off -premise" outdoor advertising sign was in place prior to the PCD zoning (it was a non -conforming use at that time), it is unaffected by the revocation of the PCD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the PCD be revoked, and that the 0-3 zoning of the site, which was in place prior to the rezoning to PCD, be reinstated. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff reported that a letter had been received from the property owner, indicating that he had had an out-of-town trip scheduled for several months, and that he asked that the revocation of his PCD be deferred until the June 6, 1996 Commission meeting. Staff recommended the requested deferral be approved and the deferral was included in the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996) The Chairman asked that the Staff present this item for consideration on the regular agenda. Staff determined that the applicant, Mr. Frank Whitbeck, was not in attendance. The Eta July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4080-A Commission determined to place the item at the end of the agenda and awaited Mr. Whitbeck's attendance. At a later point in the agenda, the Chairman asked that this item be again placed on the regular agenda for discussion. Again, staff noticed that there was no one present representing the application. A brief discussion between staff and the Commission determined that this item be deferred again until the next regular scheduled meeting, which is July 18, 1996 and that the applicant, Mr. whitbeck, be instructed to be in attendance or the Commission would act upon the matter of revocation and forward the item to the Board of Directors without further comment. A motion was made to this effect. The motion was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) There was no discussion of this item at the Subdivision Committee meeting. However, a follow-up discussion of this subject with the City's Attorney Office with Stephen Giles indicated that the applicants' attorney, Mr. Christopher Barrier, has indicated a recommended solution. This solution is supported by the City Attorney and Staff at this point. The action that will be recommended at the Planning Commission would be that the portion of the current PCD that is occupied by the billboard and landscaped area be continued and maintained as a valid PCD lot. The balance of the property which is vacant lying to the east would be returned to its original 0-3 General Office classification. This action would resolve the problem as it currently exist, which is the owner has no use of the vacant lot in as much as it is tied to a PCD with buildings that no longer occupy the property. His primary concern was the temporary continuance of the billboard until such time as he has a development for the total site. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Chairman recognized Staff and asked that they offer their recommendation and an update on the Bunnell's Short -Form PCD. Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief history of the application and instructed the Commission that the applicant and staff had reached an understanding as for a solution of the revocation ordinance so as to serve the best interest of the property owner in retaining one of the uses existing on the property. Wood pointed out that the original PCD provided for a billboard on the westernmost lot at the street corner. Wood stated that in discussion with Mr. Christopher Barrier, attorney 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: z -4080-A for the owner, this billboard site being one lot should be retained as a PCD and the remaining property be returned to an 0-3 classification through the process of revocation. The Chairman then recognized Mr. the application as presented by understood the proposal at this agree the item should go to the ordinance. Barrier. Mr. Barrier indicated Staff was as he and his client time. He indicated that they Board for the appropriate After a brief discussion, the Commission determined that it would be appropriate to act on this case as recommended by the Staff and send the item to the City Board for final action. A motion was made to recommend to the City Board that the 0-3 restoration on the easternmost portion of the property be approved and the billboard site being the western lot be retained as a PD -C. A vote on the motion produced 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. 4 November 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 NAME: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Bunnell's Short Form PCD (Z -4080-A) 1517 Cantrell Road ENGINEER: Joe Bunnell/Frank Whitbeck Mehlburger, Tanner & Renshaw Suite 1128 Little Rock, AR Savers Federal & Loan Bldg. Phone: 375-5331 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-5525 AREA: .18•acres + NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "PCD" PROPOSED USES: Antiques and Retail Sales Shop A. SITE HISTORY This item was reviewed by the Commission on September 27 as a request for rezoning from "0-3" General Office to 11C-1" Neighborhood Commercial. Staff felt that a PUD would be better, since it would allow flexibility in the location of parking, control of access and establishment of a projected tenant list and not a precedent for the commercial strip. This list would permit future leases of rental efforts without further public review. The Commission agreed. B. DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES 1. The use of the site for antique, retail and sales. C. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL 1. Improvement of Lots 5 and 6, including an existing wood frame structure on Lot 5, an existing outdoor off -premise sign on Lot 6, an existing parking lot on Lot 6 and landscaping similar to that on Lot 6. 2. The uses on Lot 5 shall be in conformance with those under "C-1" zoning. November 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued 3. The uses on Lot 6 shall be in conformance with those permitted by "C-3" zoning. 4. The parking area on Lot 6 will have an area for six automobiles with turnaround room and ingress and egress from Cantrell Road. D. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS None. E. ANALYSIS The plan as submitted does not indicate a parking layout. The applicant is asked to show this information and pave the parking lot. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, subject to comments made. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: 1 Staff reported that the PUD process is recommended for this item so as not to set a precedent for commercial rezoning in this area,.to fix structural uses gn the property and to use for groupings on the two lots ("C-1" on Lot 5, "C-3" on Lot 6). The applicant agreed with the staff recommendation to pave the parking area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. An acceptable plan for parking was submitted and a commitment to pave the parking lot was made. A motion for approval was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. y . November 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 NAME: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Bunnell's Short Form PCD (Z -4080-A) 1517 Cantrell Road FMnTMRR P Joe Bunnell/Frank Whitbeck Mehlburger, Tanner & Renshaw Suite 1128 Little Rock, AR Savers Federal & Loan Bldg. Phone: 375-5331 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-5525 AREA: .18•acres + NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "PCD" PROPOSED USES: Antiques and Retail Sales Shop A. SITE HISTORY This item was reviewed by the Commission on September 27 as a request for rezoning from "0-3" General Office to "C-1" Neighborhood Commercial. Staff felt that a PUD would be better, since it would allow flexibility in the location of parking, control of access and establishment of a projected tenant list and not a precedent for the commercial strip. This list would permit future leases of rental efforts without further public review. The Commission agreed. B. DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES 1. The use of the site for antique, retail and sales. C. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL 1. Improvement of Lots 5 and 6, including an existing wood game structure on Lot 5, an existing outdoor off -premise sign on Lot 6, an existing parking lot or} Lot 6 and landscaping similar to that on Lot 6. 2. The uses on Lot 5 shall be in conformance with those under "C-1" zoning. 1' 1.November 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued 3. The uses on Lot 6 shCl3�zoning. e in with those permitted by 4, The parking area onLturnaroundt 6 will hroomave aandringress for six automobiles with and egress from Cantrell Road. D. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS None. E. ANALIS cate a arking applicant not The plan as submitted does layout. The askedltolshow this information and pave the parking lot. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, subject to comments made. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Staff reported that the PUD process is recommended for so as not to set a precedent for commercial s on the this item to fix structural use rezoning in this area, groupings on the two lots property and to use foro Lot 6). The applicant agreed ("C-1" on Lot 5, C-3 ave the parking with the staff recommendation to p area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: actors. An The applicant was f,rearki wasrsubmitted anwere no d a commitment acceptable plan for parking A motion for approval was to pave the parking lot waS,madnoes and 1 absent. passed by a vote of 10 aY