Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4331-A Staff AnalysisR December 12, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-4331-A NAME: River Cove Office/PCD - A revised PCD LOCATION: 2000 Cantrell Road (north side) DEV.ELO.PER: ENGINEER: Development America Corp. Tommy Bond/Richardson David A. Carl 2400 Riverfront Drive 1717 Rebsamen Park Rd. Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 501-664-4700 501-664-0003 AREA: 4.6 acres NUMBER OF .LOTS: 1 FT....._NEW...._STREET: 0 ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USES: Office, commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 .............................._._......._........._.....__ ....... ............. .......... . CENSUS TRACT: 9 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The developer plans to build a 71,632 square foot office building on this site. The building will be concrete/metal frame with stucco finish and will contain approximately 40 offices. The parking area will be located on the first floor and around the site. The entrance to the project will be from North Cantrell Road through an easement drive along the west and east boundary lines. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This revised PCD is filed for purposes of the construction of an office building along the Arkansas River frontage. 1 December 12, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. A Continued B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This tract of land is rather rugged with natural foliage in place. The area consists of commercial and industrial uses. Warehouse uses abut the property on the west, a marina boat sales use on the south, and the Arkansas River on the north. The only access to the site at the present is along the west boundary line. There are mature trees on the site, one of them over 2.5 feet in diameter. The nearest street (North Cantrell Road) is very narrow with 15 foot wide pavement. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: The site plan submitted is inadequate for a comprehensive review. We recommend deferral until the applicant submits a survey which locates this project, and shows the surrounding public streets. 2. The apparent site location is in the 100-year floodplain fringe, and floor elevations of habitable structures will need to be shown as a minimum of 1.0 feet above the 100-year flood elevation. No buildings or other improvements may be located in the floodway. The accuracy of the floodway line shown on the submittal is subject to verification on the requested survey. 3. All drives in the project will need to be private drives if constructed as depicted. The applicant should show the connection to a public road, and document the public status of "North Cantrell Road". 4. This project is understood to be exempt from the provisions of the Detention Ordinance, although no specific language in the ordinance provides for the exemption. The Planning Commission may wish to clarify this ambiguity. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/­_DESIGN: This PCD filing is rather sketchy in nature with a failing of several important elements, one being a proper survey of the site. The site is only partially dimensioned. December 12, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. A .(Continued The primary legal issue attached to this plat is the access. This developer was directed by the Planning Staff to provide evidence before the Subdivision hearing of legal access over the easement which has outparcel ownership relationship with warehouses. The access to this site from North Cantrell Road is understood to be from a common driveway with adjacent warehouse building. an These are significant issues for a PCD and a subsequent Plat. that will be required. Therefore, information on that subject as well as the plat should be filed. E. ANALYSIS: The Planning and Engineering Staff feels that this PCD filing is of such a nature that a proper review cannot be accomplished at this time. We would suggest that the applicant request a deferral until the next scheduled meeting in order to address the several issues pointed out above. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends deferral of this application to December 12, 1989. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (October 19, 1989) The applicant, Mr. David Carl, was present as was his assistant. Staff offered comments on the staff recommendation indicating the reasons for the deferral request. Mr. Carl then offered comments on the design issue outlined by the Public Works department. Mr. Gardner of the Public Works department provided clarification on his comments and suggested possible modifications. Mr. Carl explained that easement access has been solved in the past between property owners. He also submitted copies of the above agreement. A last question that was raised was if North Cantrell Street can provide access to heavy traffic created by 40 offices. The Engineering staff agreed to research the issue with the Traffic staff before the Planning Commission meeting. December 12, 1989 SUBDIVISION It.em_NoA Continued) A general discussion followed during which Mr. Carl agreed to comply with staff comments and clarify them before the Planning Commission meeting, if possible. If not, the item will be deferred to the next agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 31, 1989) The applicant, David Carl, was present and requested a deferral to the December 12, 1989 meeting. This would afford the developer sufficient time to address the concerns of neighborhood objectors and the staff recommendation. There were two objectors in attendance, Mrs. P. Richardson and Mr. Gus Blass, but no one spoke in opposition to the deferral request. A motion was made to defer the item to the December 12, 1989 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 open position. STAFF REPORT: All remaining issues have not been resolved. Therefore, the Planning and Engineering staffs recommend this item be withdrawn and refiled when all issues have been resolved. On November 22, 1989, the applicant submitted a proper survey showing easement, floodway and property lines. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (November 30, 1989) Mr. David Carl, the engineer and the developer's assistant were present representing the revised PCD. The Planning staff offered comments and presented a recommendation. The engineer, Mr. Richardson offered additional information on the easement issue. He presented a copy of the easement file record. The record states that "20 foot wide easement allowed access over, upon, along and across to east 20 feet of Lot 29, Worthen's Addition to the City of Little Rock". The developer also suggested that he plans to design an intersection on North Cantrell with 20 foot wide easement to protect the neighborhood property from usage by his clientele. 4 December 12, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. A (Continued Jerry Gardner of the Engineering staff performed a brief overview of the traffic problems on the intersection of Cantrell Road and North Cantrell Drive. He stated that an additional 40 offices may create traffic problems and the requirement of a traffic light. He also added that it has to be installed as the land holder's expense. Mr. Wood of the Planning staff suggested that the Planning Commission pass a resolution for the Highway Department to take action on the traffic light issue. The Committee then moved to the discussion of a request from the City of Little Rock to dedicate floodway to the City. Mr. Richardson, engineer, requested clarification of staff's comments. Mr. Wood of the Planning staff stated that according to the ordinance, the floodway should be dedicated to the City of Little Rock. Mr. David Carl stated that he does not mind having trails crossing his property as planned by the Parks Department, but he would rather maintain the floodway area by himself. A representative from the Water Works Department asked the developer to provide an easement for the existing water main. The Planning staff suggested discussing this issue between the Water Works and developer outside the Subdivision meeting and bringing the results to the Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (December 12, 1989) There were two objectors in attendance. The application was presented by Mr. Bob Richardson and David Carl, developer. The Planning staff presented its recommendation of approval subject to traffic consideration. The Chairman then asked Mr. Richardson to present the application. Mr. Richardson offered a lengthy presentation wherein he addressed the staff's comments. He described the easement access as stated in the file record. He stated that the design of the intersection of Old Cantrell Road and the easement was proposed to prevent neighborhood property from use by office tenants. Commissioner Schlereth asked the engineer how he would restrict traffic from this project for only the easement. Mr. Richardson added that he would like to put stripes on the road as curb and gutter are not permitted. 1✓ ■ December 12, 1989 SUBDIVISION Lte_m No.. A. (Pont inued) The Committee then moved to the discussion of the floodway dedication and traffic light. Mr. Richardson stated that a traffic light would be needed but this is not an issue for this project. It was also pointed out by Mr. Richardson that the floodway dedication had not been required on the previous marina PCD and that the present project is only amending an already approved PCD. Mr. Jerry Gardner of the City Engineer's staff was asked by the staff to provide input on the floodway issue. Mr. Gardner stated that floodway dedication should be a Board judgment. A brief discussion followed involving several of the Commissioners dealing with floodway dedication. Jim Lawson suggested asking the owner of this tract to leave this as an open area. The Commission then asked Mr. Blass, Jr., general partner of Capital Property located directly west, for his comments. His main concern was the entrance. He suggested moving the entrance to the east of River Cove Office. His second concern was traffic at 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. He also pointed out that a health club and restaurant would create additional problems with traffic. His last concern was if 176 parking spaces would be sufficient for such a large office building. The Chairman then asked Mr. Blass, Sr. to present his concerns. He stated that stripes along the easement would not protect his property from crossing by office building tenants. He also mentioned that they spent a lot of money to improve the access from Cantrell Road and he would like to be reimbursed from future users. Mr. Bob Richardson pointed out that the entrance on the east was an option before staff objected to it. He also added that 176 parking spaces would be sufficient for the project. The discussion then moved to the area of placement of the main entrance on the east side. Several Committee members felt that it would be a good idea. Staff responded by stating that additional right-of-way and substantial improvements should be done to North Cantrell. Finally, David Carl, the developer, agreed to make improvements to North Cantrell and locate the main entrance on the east side of the property. 11 a 4 December 12, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. A Continued A motion to approve this project subject to improvement of North Cantrell Road,to provide primary access along the east side of Cantrell Marina and to the developer maintaining the floodway as an open space was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. 7 FILE NO.: Z-4331- NAME: RIVER COVE PCD (REVISED) (REVOCATION) LOCATION: 2000 Cantrell Road at Worthen Bayou CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jack Oliver, II Boathouse, Inc. P. O. Box 7621 Little Rock, AR 72217 ORIGINAL APPLICANT: David Carl Dev. America Corporation 2400 Riverfront Dr. Little Rock, AR 72202 AREA: 4.6 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PCD ORIGINAL ZONING: I-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: #4 CENSUS TRACT: 15.00 BACKGROUND: This PCD received preliminary approval from the Planning Commission on December 12, 1989 and by the Board of Directors on January 16, 1990 by Ordinance No. 15,797. There was objection to a large office building on this site both from adjacent businesses and residential owners across Cantrell Road. There have been no requests for time extension. STAFF UPDATE: On October 1, 1996, Staff mailed a certified letter to the owner, Mr. Oliver, advising him that the city staff was pursuing revocation. There has been no contact since the return receipt was placed in the case file, documenting his receipt. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the PCD titled "River Cove Office Short -Form PCD" be revoked and that the I-3 zoning existing prior to the PCD be restored. FILE NO.: Z-4331-A Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 5, 1996) Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief update of this item in which he indicated that the previous developer was no longer a party to this project and that Mr. Jack Oliver, representing the ownership, had indicated that a return to the 1-3 zoning would be appropriate for another development which he is pursuing at this time. After a brief discussion of the issue, a motion was made to recommend to the Board of Directors the revocation of this PCD and restoration of the original zoning. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. F December 5, 1996 ITEM NO.: 6E I rCont. FILE NO.: Z-4331--A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 5, 1996) Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief update of this item in which he indicated that the previous developer was no longer a Party to this project and that Mr. Jack Oliver, representing the ownership, had indicated that a return to the I-3 zoning would be appropriate for another development which he is pursuing at this time. After a brief discussion of the issue, a motion was made to recommend to the Board of Directors the revocation of this PCD and restoration of the original zoning. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. E December 5, 1996 ITEM NO.: 6E FILE NO.: Z-4331-A NAME: RIVER COVE PCD (REVISED) (REVOCATION) LOCATION: 2000 Cantrell Road at Worthen Bayou CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jack Oliver, II Boathouse, Inc. P. O. Box 7621 Little Rock, AR AREA: 4.6 ACRES 72217 ORIGINAL APPLICANT: David Carl Dev. America Corporation 2400 Riverfront Dr. Little Rock, AR 72202 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PCD PLANNING DISTRICT: #4 CENSUS TRACT: 15.00 BACKGROUND: ORIGINAL ZONING: I-3 This PCD received preliminary approval from the Planning Commission on December 12, 1989 and by the Board of Directors on January 16, 1990 by Ordinance No. 15,797. There was objection to a large office building on this site both from adjacent businesses and residential owners across Cantrell Road. There have been no requests for time extension. STAFF UPDATE: On October 1, 1996, Staff mailed a certified letter to the owner, Mr. Oliver, advising him that the city staff was pursuing revocation. There has been no contact since the return receipt was placed in the case file, documenting his receipt. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the PCD titled -River Cove Office Short -Form PCD" be revoked and that the I-3 zoning existing prior to the PCD be restored. October 30, 1984 Item No. E NAME: Boat�Iouse, Inc. ong Form "PCP)(Z-4331),. LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Jack Oliver II AREA: 8.62 acres ENGINEER: Richardson Engineers 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "I-3" PROPOSED USES: Marina/Boat Sales and Service PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 CENSUS TRACT: 16 A. B. Site Histor The property is presently zoned 11I-2." Development Rationale/Objectives The proposed project schedules a marina with 82 covered yacht sized slips on the Arkansas River on the south bank of the river. The proposal also schedules a boat/yacht sales, service and storage facility on the south end of the land parcel. The northern end of the land parcel will provide a restaurant and/or building development to work in concrete with the proposed marina. Boat owners will be provided a full range of services for their covered slips which will either be readied or sold to individual investors and/or boat/yacht owners. Additional parking and access is provided by the adjacent property to the east. It is anticipated at a future date, a launching and dry docking operation will also be accomplished. October 30, 1984 Item No. E - Continued C. Proposal 1. To construct on 4.62 acres a development composed of yacht slips, boat sales, services and storage (Tract A). 2. To eliminate Tract B (4 acre) from "PCD" consideration, thereby making this a short form "PCD," since it is under a 40-year lease from the Arkansas Schools for the Deaf and Blind, and because it is only to be used for parking and accessing 30 of the 82 marina slips. It is provided only for information. 3. Reservation of the right to file a future request for a building to house a restuarant and/or offices or residential condominiums with related parking. 4. Quantitative Data (Tract A) (A) Building Uses Floor Area Parking Boat Sales 4,000 sq. ft. 13 Boat Service 5,000 sq. ft. 7 Boat Storage 7,000 sq. ft. 9 Totals: 16,000 sq. ft. 29 (B) Marina Slips Area of Slips Parkin 82 57,728 sq. ft. 87 (C) Total Land Area Tract A - 4.62 acres ("PCD") Tract B - 4 acres (Lease Area) Total Building Area ....... 16,000 sq. ft. Land Building Ratio ....... 12.6:1 D. Engineering Comments This development is subject to floodway and floodplain ordinances. The Corps of Engineers must approve the marina and other structures in the Arkansas River. October 30, 1984 Item No. E - Continued E. Anal sis Staff approves of the design/use of the site and finds no fault with the applicant's request/approach for development. During a previous rezoning hearing, the applicant agreed to remove the building. He has not, so staff will not pursue the issue if he commits to this improvement. Also, the on -premise roof sign is currently prohibited by ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Staff was concerned about the use of parking on Tract "D" to serve Tract "A." The applicant decided to eliminate his request for a short -form "PUD" and include all of the property in the approval. He was instructed to provide a letter from the owner of Tract "A" authorizing its use and to work with Water Works relative to their request for a 15' easement, 7.5' either side of an existing fire hydrant lead, an existing 16" main which crosses the property and under the existing boat sales building. Mr. Bob Richardson, the applicant's engineer, stated that the floodway had been certified by the City Engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant's engineer, Mr. Bob Richardson, submitted a revised plan showing a 20-foot utility and access easement on the west side of the site, and a letter from the owners of Tract A giving permission to rezone. Mr. Gus Blass, the owner of property to the west, objected to the way the easement was shown and felt that because an existing fence was located on the applicant's property line, persons visiting the marina would come across his property. He also felt that Mr. Richardson had not made a conscientious effort to contact him. Mr. Richardson stated it was not their intent to use Mr. Blass' parking lot for access, since the easement was part of an agreement between owners of both properties in previous years. After a lengthy discussion, a motion for a three week deferral was made and passed, so that both property owners could work out their differences. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. October 30, 1984 Item No. E - Continued I PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-30-84) The applicant, Mr. Jack Oliver, and the Engineer, Mr. Bob Richardson, were in attendance. Staff stated the Position as being unchanged, except for the request of an easement for a 16 inch water main for Water Works, to be j reflected on the final plat. Mr. Richardson requested to amend the plat by providing a six-foot opaque fence on the western boundary of the project to appease Mr. Blass, the abutting property owner. Mr. Blass stated that he would build his own fence, but since the fence would interfere with his right to use the access easement, then the developer of the project should compensate him for the loss by bringing the easement to grade, maintaining and repairing it and paving the land on the southeast corner of the property. When tract A is developed, he requested to have more than three working days to review the plans. There was discussion as to the extent that the PCD process allowed discussion of conditions that should or could be considered as private contractual agreements. Mr. Richardson presented a written agreement signed by Mr. Oliver that includes those items requested by Mr. Blass. A motion for approval was finally made, subject to: (1) the provision of an easement on the final plat if there is a right to one or the provision of a substitute easement on the south for Water Works; and (2) the concerns expressed by Mr. Blass. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.