Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4280 Staff AnalysisJuly 24, 1984 Item No. 16 - Z-4280 Owner: R.P.M. Applicant: R.P.M. By: Bill Hastings Location: Merrill Drive at Macon Drive Request: Rezone from "C-4" Open Display to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: Shopping Center Size: 3.891 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Office and Commercial, Zoned "C-3" and "C-4" South - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "C-3" East - Vacant, Zoned "C-4" West - Vacant and Multifamily, Zoned "R-5" and "C-3" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to reclassify a tract of land in the Charles Valley Subdivision from "C-4" to "C-3." The existing "C-4" classification was a conversion from the "G-1" commercial district with the adoption of a new zoning ordinance. The property abuts "C-4" zoning on two sides with "R-5" and "C-3" across Merrill Drive to the west and south. Much of the area is "C-4" but certain tracts have been rezoned to other districts such as "0-3" and "C-3." The proposed use is a shopping center similar to other developments found in the vicinity and "C-3" allows a greater range of activities including retail and office uses. There are no outstanding issues and staff supports the rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted to recommend approval•of the request as filed. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Bill Rector). July 24, 1984 Item No. 17 - Other Matters - Right -of -Way Abandonment Owner: J. Dan Baker By; Christopher Barrier Address: All of the 4600 block and lands east and west within the right-of-way of East Roosevelt Road beginning approximately 1/2 block west of Airport Terminal Entrance. Description: All of the South 50 feet of and east/west segment of East Roosevelt Road being 1,313.53 feet in length. Purpose of Abandonment: To attach to the adjacent lands and provide a more buildable lot depth. The intended use of abutting property is a motel. Justification: The existing 160 -foot wide right-of-way is greatly in excess of the needed 100 feet for a Master Street Plan requirement for a Principal arterial. The City Engineer's Office has developed a plan to return a 50 -foot strip of Roosevelt Road to the abutting owners from the Airport entrance to approximately Confederate Boulevard. This plan was developed at the direction of the City Board of Directors. Points of Review: There is at this time no public need expressed by any agency for this right-of-way except as required for utilities. The Master Street Plan in this area requires a maximum of 100 feet in width. There are no adjacent public streets abutting the owners' property which require additional right-of-way. The land abutting the terrain and that Portion to be closed is generally flat with large open drainage ditches. The land area involved in the right -of -w Lai closure is approximately 1.5 acres or 1313.53 feet in length. July 24, 1984 Item No. 17 - Continued Neighborhood Land Use and zoning A. The land to the north is the Little Rock Airport zoned "1-2.11 B. The land to the east is vacant and zoned "I-2." C. The land to the south is vacant and zoned "C-3." D. The land to the west is vacant and zoned Neighborhood Position At this writing, none has been received. However, a verbal commitment has been received from the Airport Commission to the effect that they interpose no objection to the abandonment. Effect on Public Services: No comment was received from either Fire, Police, Parks or Sanitation. Effect on Public Utilities The following requests were made by the five basic utilities. A. Little Rock Water Works A need is expressed for retention of a Water Works easement to be expressed as 7.5 feet either side of the water line as laid. A request by the Water Works is that the owner provide an easement deed on their form and be filed before the Board of Directors meeting. B. Gas Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company expresses that no easement requirements are necessary. C. Wastewater Utility No needs expressed for easement. D, AP&L Arkansas and Power and Light expresses a need for a 12.5 -foot utility easement on both sides of the pole line as it now exists. • July 24, 1984 Item No. 17 - Continued E. Bell Telephone Southwestern Bell has expressed no need for easements. Legal Issues 1. The entire 50 feet of right-of-way to be abandoned will accrue to the petitioner. 2. This right-of-way was acquired by the City of Little Rock for Master Street purposes prior to the commitment by the state to build Interstate 440. The need for a divided facility in this area has now been reduced to an arterial standard; therefore, a quitclaim deed will be in order to provide for transfer of title from the right-of-way to private ownership. 3. There are no access issues to other abutting properties attached to this petition. Staff Analysis: • The Planning staff supports this abandonment subject to the retention of utility easements within the Abandonment Ordinance and provision of separate Water Works easement being filed with that agency. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the right-of-way abandonment by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. July 24, 1984 Item No. 18 - Storm Water Management and Drainage Ordinance At the December 16 Planning Commission Retreat, the staff presented the proposed Storm Water Management and Drainage Ordinance. Since that time, the ordinance has been redrafted twice after extensive discussions with local engineers, developers and other interested persons in an effort to improve the ordinance and to work out specific problems and concerns which have been identified. The ordinance is now ready to be presented to the Planning Commission for a possible recommendation to the Board of Directors. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Don McChesney gave a brief review of the Master Stormwater Management and Drainage Ordinance. Don suggested that the Planning Commission had asked his department to do several things concerning the ordinance. Don stated that he had: (1) met with engineers and developers, (2) looked at other cities and what they have done with detention and retention ponds, and (3) developed test cases concerning the costs that would be incurred under the jaew ordinance. Mr. McChesney stated that the ordinance has been in the process of developing for 2 1/2 years. He suggested that this has been a very open process with considerable input. At the beginning of the process, a technical advisory committee was formed to review the adopting of the ordinance. He further stated that they have developed a total of three drafts for the ordinance. Don stated that several items have been taken out of the third draft. The items he mentioned were: (1) the removal of a separate drainage permit, (2) the amendment of the appeal process, (3) an exemption for small projects. (4) the elimination of the requirement for a maintenance bond, (5) the resolution of the maintenance responsibilities for detention ponds, and (6) an in -lieu contribution alternative to on-site detention. Mr. McChesney also stated that a survey of other cities has been completed. The survey focused on how many cities required detention ponds and what the results have been. Don stated that detention is a concept that is adaptable and is not difficult to work with. He explained that none of the 47 cities surveyed have backed down or changed their detention philosophy. He stated that the cities that were interviewed felt that there is no alternative to detention. Don further stated that none of the cities interviewed took as long to review the process as his office has done. July 24, 1984 Item No. 18 - Continued Mike Batie gave a review of the five case studies that he has developed concerning the ordinance. He chose those cases that the Planning Commission were familiar with and that had a diversity of project types. Case No. 1 dealt with a multifamily project on Mara Lynn Drive. He explained the project and explained that in the worst possible case and an additional $5,700 might be assessed due to the drainage requirements. He stated this might be a $19 per unit cost at the worst possible case. Project No. 2 was an apartment complex on Napa Valley. It is the Turtle Creek Project. This project entails check damns. The cost of this project would be approximately $188 per acre or $12 per unit. He stated this project would have the capability of storing a 25 -year flood. Case No. 3 dealt with a shopping center in the Colonel Glenn -Bowman Road Area. Mike stated that he had reviewed six alternatives in this project. The project alternatives included on and0off-site basins, parking lot storage, the provision of a swale in the setback and a large detention area. Mike reviewed the swale concept which he stated would be an area approximately 110' x 801. He stated the other alternatives would not involve any additional costs to the project. He stated that the Swale would be the most expensive of the alternatives, that cost being $49,750. Projects 4 and 5 dealt with single family subdivisions. Case No. 4 was a subdivision proposal on Crystal Valley Road. In this particular instance, detention was recommended and would cost approximately $410. Because of the detention facility, a cost savings would probably be involved because of not having to install 117' of pipe. The last project dealt with Misty Lane. This was a four lot subdivision that would involve a 20' x 40' low area of approximately 2 1/2' in depth as a retention area. Mike estimated that this might involve a total of $1,600 or an additional $400 unit cost. In conclusion, Mike stated that he felt like the ordinance would not involve additional money to the developers. In the above cases he referred to, he always stated the worst possible condition. He stated that many times areas could be reserved for detention areas that would actually reduce the cost of the subdivision development because pipes would not be required to be installed. July 24, 1984 Item No. 18 - Continued Mr. Keys, a contractor, also addressed the Planning Commission. He referred to the written statement by the AGC -AIA Committee. This committee has been reviewing the ordinance. The Planning Commission agreed to review the Drainage Ordinance again at the second meeting in August. • July 24, 1984 Item No. 16 -- Z-4280 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: R.P.M. R.P.M. By: Bill Hastings Merrill Drive at Macon Drive Rezone from "C-4" Open Display to "C-3" General Commercial Shopping Center 3.891 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Office and Commercial, Zoned "C-3" and "C-4" South - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "C-3" East - Vacant, Zoned "C-4" West - Vacant and Multifamily, Zoned "R-5" and "C-3" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to reclassify a tract of land in the Charles Valley Subdivision from "C-4" to "C-3." The existing "C-4" classification was a conversion from the "G-1" commercial district with the adoption of a new zoning ordinance. The property abuts "C-4" zoning on two sides with "R-5" and "C-3" across Merrill Drive to the west and south. Much of the area is "C-4" but certain tracts have been rezoned to other districts such as "0-3" and "C-3." The proposed use is a shopping center similar to other developments found in the vicinity and "C-3" allows a greater range of activities including retail and office uses. There are no outstanding issues and staff supports the rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the request as filed,. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Bill Rector).