Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4123 Staff AnalysisJanuary 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B NAME: Process One PCD (Z-4123) LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Rodney Parham and Old Forge DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Process One Richardson Engineers Ft. Smith, AR 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 AREA: 0.57 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" ' PROPOSED USES: "C-311 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Allow building to be within the 251 setback from the floodway. 2. Minimum acreage requirement. A. History of the Site None. B. Development Objectives 1. To provide the area with pickup and delivery photographic service. 2. The use of a PUD process as a more acceptable vehicle for development in the neighborhood than the usually required "C-3" zoning. C. Development Proposal 1. Building Area...............910 sq. ft. 2. Parking......................20 spaces 3. Waivers Requested: (a) Construction of building within the 25-foot setback area from the floodway. January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Bob Richardson represented the applicant. A revised plan indicated as "Plan C" was presented. It served to reduce parking and remove the building out of the floodway setback. The Commission determined that the main issue to be resolved involved use as land for a park (if acquired), for office (as proposed), or as residential (as zoned), since technical Ordinance requirements were met. Objectors, however, felt that just technical compliance in this instance was not enough. Spokespersons from the neighborhood included Mr. Chris Jackson, an attorney experienced in flooding matters and a resident to the immediate west, Mr. Al Gantz, a resident of 15 to 20 years, and Mr. Fred Arnold, a retired architect and resident of the area for 35 years. They contended that there was currently a flooding problem resulting in previous damages to their property, and expressed a fear of further damages if the property is developed. Mr. Jackson also stated that at the time he rezoned his present office site, he was advised against commercial zoning in the area. Finally, a motion was made and passed for a 30-day deferral so that a more detailed study could be done to determine the natural flow of the water and weather damage would result to the abutting area if the property is developed. A motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 1 noe and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (12-29-83) Mr. Bob Richardson, project engineer, stated that he is still awaiting the results of the hydraulic analysis being done by Garver and Garver Engineers. The City Engineer is requested to review the study before the meeting on the loth. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Bob Richardson represented the developer. Objectors from the neighborhood were in attendance. Mr. Richardson reported that the results of the HEC-2 Computer Program, based on data last updated in 1980, showed that this proposal caused no increase in flood levels. January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued (b) Minimum acreage requirement. D. Engineerinq Considerations (a) Floodway and elevation information is represented correctly. (b) Recent Ordinance requires 25' setback from floodway line. (c) Chain link fence should not be placed in the floodway. E. Analysis The applicant has requested two waivers. Adequate justification is needed in order to grant a variance from the recently approved Floodplain Ordinance. The burden is on the applicant to provide this. Since this is a short -form PUD, there is no minimum acreage requirement. Staff felt that the proposed parking is a little excessive for the intended use. F. Staff Recommendation Approval of the plat but further justification for the waiver is needed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Staff reported a change from their original recommendation to that of denial. The main objection is against the use of the property as commercial at this location. Staff's past policy reflects approvals of office on rezonings of this nature in the Rodney Parham area. Engineering also modified their position on the waiver, stating that they would accept the building line which designates the buildable area. Additional information received reflected the strong desire from the Parks Department for a park on this site. January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued Attorney Cliff Jackson challenged this position by stating that there was obviously a difference in the theoretical data and what was observed; and that the results of the study were not accurate because it was based on an erroneous outdated data base, as proved by neighborhood accounts of existing flooding problems. He stressed the danger of voting merely on theoretical assumption rather than relying on direct eyewitness account. It was pointed out that the City has already been legally challenged on two accounts in which it used this approach. An additional objection expressed was to "a junky commercial building adjacent to his house." Other speakers from the neighborhood included: (1) Mr. Al Janssen of 45 Warwick who'showed pictures of flooding with a normal rainfall. (2) Mr. Fred Arnold who spoke against the outdated engineering data used in computation. (3) Mr. C.S. Ferrell of 55 Warwick submitted a petition with 26 signatures of persons who have a flooding problem when it rains. (4) Mr. Grant, who used to work as an architectural engineer, stated that the floodway and floodplain maps used for data weren't correct. Due to previous work experience, he knew that they were based on aerial photos. He reiterated previous comments concerning an existing flooding problem. (5) Mr. Bill Clendenen, a new property owner, objected to the proposed use of the property as commercial. A motion was made to approve the project. It was denied by a vote of 3 ayes, 7 noes and 1 abstention.* *Commissioner Rector abstained.