Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4103-A Staff AnalysisORDINANCE NO. 15,447 AN ORDINANCE RECLASSIFYING PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING SECTION 43 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, -ARKANSAS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the zone classification of the following property be and is hereby changed as indicated: Z -4103-A - Described as Lots 109-132 and Lots 137-157 and part of adjacent streets of Broadmoor North, an addition to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, containing 12.95 acres more or less from "R-2" Single Family and "0-2" Office and Institutional to 110-3" General Office (Northmoor, Charlotte, and Garfield Drives). SECTION 2. That a preliminary plat with a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet be approved by the Planning Commission and that a final plat be filed for the area along the southern portion of Garfield Drive with a cul-de-sac terminating Garfield Drive at the end of the office development/lots. SECTION 3. That the map referred to in Section 43 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock and 'designated map be and is hereby amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change provided for in Section 1 hereof. ' SECTION 4. That the ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval. PASSED: March 15, 1988 ATTEST: Jane Czech APPROVED: Lottie Shackelford City Clerk Mayor —February 23, 1988 Item No. A - Z -4103-A V% Owner: University Properties, Inc., and Bill Lusk Applicant: John L. Burnett Location: Broadmoor North Phase II (Northmoor, Charlotte and Garfield Drives) Request: Rezone from "R-2" and "0-2" to 110-311 Purpose: I Office Size: 12.95 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Church, Office, and Commercial, Zoned "R-2, "R-5," and "0-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Church and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" and "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone 10.5 acres (12.9 acres including the street right-of-way) in the Broadmoor North Subdivision from "R-2" and "0-2" to "0-3" for some type of office park development. No specific plans have been submitted, so it is unknown how the lots will be developed and/or marketed. Broadmoor North is located to the southwest of the intersection of West 12th and University Avenue. There are a total of 45 lots included in this request, and none of them have any direct relationship to either West 12th or University Avenue which is critical to an office area this size. Without access to a major street and having to utilize residential streets for traffic circulation, the proposed "0-3" rezoning is questionable. Also without the high visibility gained from having some frontage on a major street, the potential for this type of land use to work is marginal at best. Another factor that must be carefully considered when reviewing this request is the desirability of allowing a nonresidential rezoning to encroach into an established single family neighborhood. When selecting February 23, 1988 Item No. A - Continued a viable office site, there are some basic criteria that should be considered, and that does not appear to be the case with this request. 2. There are 45 lots and two streets, Garfield and Charlotte Drives, involved with this request. All the lots are vacant, and the site is relatively flat. The lots under consideration have frontage on either Garfield or Charlotte: 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. As of this writing, there have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies. 5. There is an apparent legal issue allied with this rezoning and that is the Bill of Assurance for Broadmoor North. The Bill of Assurance.restricts the land use to detached single family residences so it appears that the Bill of Assurance will have to be amended at some point, if the rezoning is granted. To, amend the Bill of Assurance, it takes 70 percent of the property owners. Also, the Bill of Assurance requires that the grantor's, Winrock Development Company, approval must first be obtained before any amendment can be made as long as the grantor owns any lots or land in the subdivision. It is the staff's understanding that Winrock still owns`several lots within the subdivision. 6. Originally, the area under consideration was part of the University Park Urban Renewal Plan which was in effect from 1964 to 1984 and expired in June 1984. The Urban Renewal Plan also restricted use of the land to detached single family units. The lots are now a part of the Broadmoor North Subdivision which was approved in the late 19701s. In October 1983, a rezoning request from "R-2" and "C-3" to "MF -12," "0-2," and "0-3" was filed for basically the same tract of land. The first application included approximately 12 acres and properties that have frontage on both West 12th and University Avenue. The issue was deferred several times, and the request which had been amended to "0-2" for all the lots was finally heard by the Planning Commission in May and June of 1984. At each of the hearings, there were objectors from the area who expressed concerns with traffic, property values, and impacts on the residential neighborhood. After much debate a modified proposal was approved for 5.2 acres of "0-2," the existing zoning pattern. Winrock February 23, 1988 Item No. A - Continued 1% Development Company was opposed to the 1984 rezoning request. 7. Staff's position is that the proposed "0-3" reclassification is inappropriate for the location and does not support the request. Some of the major issues have been presented in other sections, but there are a number of other concerns. L - The appropriateness of filing an application for nonresidential zoning on land that is restricted to detached single family use. - . The request does not conform to the adopted Boyle Park Plan which shows single family residential for the lots. The possible encroachment of nonresidential uses into a viable single family neighborhood. - The request appears to be speculative in nature. Access is totally inadequate for the proposed rezoning, and the use of residential streets is undesirable. The proposal is contrary to good land use and planning because of various factors, and the "0-3" reclassification could have a very adverse impact on the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "0-3" rezoning as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-1-87) The applicant was represented by Pete Hornibrook. There was one objector in attendance. Staff reported to the Commission that the applicant submitted a written request for deferral, but it was received after the five working days as required by the Planning Commission Bylaws. There was some discussion about the request and the objector said that he was not opposed to deferring the rezoning. A motion was made to defer the request to the January 12, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. February 23, 1988 Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-12-88) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a written request for a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the February 23, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-23-88) The applicant, John Burnett, was present. There were no objectors. Gary Greeson, Planning Director, addressed the Commission and said that 110-2" would be more desirable for the "R-2" property north of the existing 110-2" and that the lots to the south should remain "R-2." Mr. Burnett then discussed the rezoning proposal on the property. He told the Commission that one reason for not wanting an 110-2" reclassification was the various utility easements and the inability to construct over them. Mr. Burnett said that "0-3" was more suitable for the proposed type of development and suggested that some type of condition restricting lot size could be made a part of the rezoning approval. The proposed condition would require the acreage in question to be replatted into 14,000 square foot lots the minimum site area for the "0-3" District. Mr. Burnett then went on to say that he had met with the one objector who attended the first public hearing and the resident indicated that the neighborhood was no longer concerned with an 110-3" development but rather with small housing units. There was some discussion about the traffic concerns, and Mr. Burnett said that he would be willing to cul-de-sac Garfield Drive at the end of the proposed office lots. Mike Batie of the Engineering staff said that a cul-de-sac was a reasonable solution to the problem. Mr. Burnett told the Commission that the area was a viable location for a small garden office park and there was a demand for one level office buildings in Little Rock. Additional comments were made about the differences in the "0-2" and 110--3" Districts including the permitted heights in the two zoning classifications. Stephens Giles of the City Attorney's Office said that requiring 14,000 square foot lots was a reasonable condition to attaci'n to the rezoning approval. There was some discussion about the final plat and other issues. A motion was then offered which recommended approval of the 110-3" rezoning with the condition that a preliminary plat be filed with 14,000 square foot lots as the minimum lot size and then a final plat be filed for the area along the southern portion of Garfield Drive,with a cul-de-sac terminating Garfield Drive at the end of the office development. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 no, and 0 absent.