Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4123-A Staff AnalysisJanuary 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B NAME• Process One PCD (Z-4123) LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Rodney Parham and Old Forge T1L"t7VT nnFU . 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-3" VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Allow building to be within the 25' 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 abuttirfg 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. En ineering 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. December 13, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 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-3" VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Allow building to be within the 25' setback from the floodway. 2. Minimum acreage requirement. A. History of the Site The site has prompted previous requests for commercial rezoning, which was denied. It was also considered at one time for a possible City park. 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. December 13, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - 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. December 13, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - 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 whether 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. March 27, 1984 Item No. 5 - Z-4123-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Allan and G.G. Thalheimer W.F. Rector Jr. 10101 Rodney Parham Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "0-3" General Office Office .57 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" South Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Park, Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "0-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The site in question appears to have severe limitations for development because of Grassy Flat Creek and its floodway. Grassy Flat Creek is identified as a priority one stream for floodway/open space acquisition in the adopted Master Parks Plan. The minimum acquisition width recommended in the plan is 2751. Because of the creek and the property's relationship to Butler Park, a more appropriate use for the land would be expansion of the park. The property would best serve the immediate area as open space, and this type of land use should not add to the reoccurring problem of flooding that has been experienced by some of the residents. It is the staff's understanding that the City has approached the owner of the property about acquiring it for this purpose. The property with its flooding and drainage concerns is not suited for any intensive development and should be made a part of the City's open space system. Any development of this tract will require site modification which will probably have some impact on the flooding problem. The property does not provide adequate developable land area for a project that will not have impacts on the residential property owners. March 27, 1984 Item No. 5 - Continued 2. The property is vacant and slopes down from Rodney Parham to the Creek. It is the only remaining parcel between Breckenridge Drive and Butler Park that does not have any type of construction on it. The floodplain includes a little more than one-half of the site and the floodway bisects the southern one-fourth of it. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. This is the location of the proposed Process One PCD which was denied by both the Planning Commission and Board of Directors over the last two months. The neighborhood's position is well documented relative to any zoning change or development on the property. From the previous attempt to develop the site, it is quite obvious that the neighborhood is strongly opposed to any development of this property. 7. The staff's position is that the site is unsuitable for any development and that the City should take every step necessary to acquire the land. The potential impacts on nearby residences from developing the property are still a concern, and the staff cannot support the rezoning. The existing 110-3" zoning to the west should be the extent of the office zoning east of Breckenridge Drive. The site would be ideal for expansion of Butler Park and be made a part of the floodway/open space corridor. This part of Little Rock would benefit greatly from certain lands being left undeveloped. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is opposed to any development on the site and recommends denial of the request. March 27, 1984 Item No. 5 - Z-4123-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Allan and G.G. Thalheimer W.F. Rector Jr. 10101 Rodney Parham Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "0-3" General Office Of f ice .57 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Park, Zoned "R-2" West . - Single Family, Zoned "0-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The site in question appears to have severe limitations for development because of Grassy Flat Creek and its floodway. Grassy Flat Creek is identified as a priority one stream for floodway/open space acquisition in the adopted Master Parks Plan. The minimum acquisition width recommended in the plan is 2751. Because of the creek and the property's relationship to Butler Park, a more appropriate use for the land would be expansion of the park. The property would best serve the immediate area as open space, and this type of land use should not add to the reoccurring problem of flooding that has been experienced by some of the residents. The property with its flooding and drainage concerns is not suited for any intensive development and should be made a part of the City's open space system. Any development of this tract will require site modification which will probably have some impact on the flooding problem. The property does not provide adequate developable land area for a project that will not have impacts on the residential property owners. March 27, 1984 Item No. 5 - Continued 2. The property is vacant and slopes down from Rodney Parham to the Creek. It is the only remaining parcel between Breckenridge Drive and Butler Park that does not have any type of construction on it. The floodplain includes a little more than one-half of the site and the floodway bisects the southern one-fourth of it. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. This is the location of the proposed Process One PCD which was denied by both the Planning Commission and Board of Directors over the last two months. The neighborhood's position is well documented relative to any zoning change or development on the property. From the previous attempt to develop the site, it is quite obvious that the neighborhood is strongly opposed to any development of this property. 7. The staff's position is that the site is unsuitable for any development and that the City should take every step necessary to acquire the land. The potential impacts on nearby residences from developing the property are still a concern, and the staff cannot support the rezoning. The existing "0-3" zoning to the west should be the extent of the office zoning east of Breckenridge Drive. The site would be ideal for expansion of Butler Park and be made a part of the floodway/open space corridor. This part of Little Rock would benefit greatly from certain lands being left undeveloped. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is opposed to any development on the site and recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Bill Hastings, was present. There were also several objectors in attendance. Staff modified their recommendation and recommended deferral to allow the City to address the issue of acquiring the property. Al Jansen, a March 27, 1984 Item No. 5 - Continued property owner in the area, spoke in support of acquiring the property for open space or park use and the deferral. Cliff Jackson, the adjacent property owner to the west, also supported the acquisition of the property. He stated that he had been in contact with the owner's agent to initiate preliminary discussions about acquiring the property. Mr. Jackson also informed the Commission that he would be willing to match the City's offer for acquiring the land if that solution was pursued. The issue was discussed at length by the Commission. Several Commission members felt that the issue before them was one of land use and that the City Board of Directors would have to address the acquisition concept and not the Planning Commission. It was pointed out by various Commissioners that the property could be developed without severely impacting the flooding situation. This was based on the engineering data that was submitted to the Commission for the initial PCD application. That engineering data reported that a project on this property would have a minimal effect on the creek. Mr. Hastings was asked about the use of the property. He said that it would be a small office but offered no other specifics. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Bill Rector).