HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5282 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: 5-2582
NAME: REVOCATION OF PLUNKETT COMMERCIAL -- SHORT -FORM PCD
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Rodney Parham Road at Green
Mountain and Hinson Road
CURRENT OWNER: RECORD ENGINEER:
PECTEN ASSOCIATES THE MEHLBURGER FIRM
1434 Pike Avenue P. O. Box 3837
No. Little Rock, AR 72114 Little Rock, AR 72203
375-5331
AREA: 0.81 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: (R-2 then) "PCD" currently PROPOSED USES: Retail
shops with Office
PLANNING DISTRICT: Pleasant Valley (2)
CENSUS TRACT: 22.04
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None were requested.
BACKGROUND:
On January 30, 1990 the owner presented a request to the
Commission for approval of a PCD that would have housed the
business called "Ballonacy" plus some office space. The
Commission recommended the request be approved after having
deferred it and holding a second meeting on February 13, 1990.
The zoning at that time was R-2 and recommended for PCD.
STAFF UPDATE:
Ordinance No. 15,844 states: "...this Ordinance shall take
effect and be in full force upon... approval of the (final) plan
by the Planning Commission." Section 36-454(d) of the Code of
Ordinances states: "The applicant shall have three (3) years
from the date of the preliminary plan approval to submit the
final ... plan.- "Failure of the applicant to file (a request for
a time extension) may result in revocation of the approval."
Development of the PCD was never undertaken, with no final plan
having been submitted for approval. Notice was given the current
owner with no response received.
FILE NO.. 5-2582 Cont.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
After a brief discussion, the Commission determined to place this
item on the Consent Agenda for approval in as much as there were
no issues or consequences to discuss. There were no objectors
and no interest expressed by the owner. A motion to approve the
Consent Agenda for approval was passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 nays and 1 absent.
2
FILE NO.: S-2582
NAME: REVOCATION OF PLUNKETT COMMERCIAL -- SHORT -FORM PCD
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Rodney Parham Road at Green
Mountain and Hinson Road
CURRENT OWNER:
PECTEN ASSOCIATES
1434 Pike Avenue
No. Little Rock, AR 72114
RECORD ENGINEER:
THE MEHLBURGER FIRM
P. O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72203
375-5331
AREA: 0.81 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: (R-2 then) "PCD" currently PROPOSED USES: Retail
shops with Office
PLANNING DISTRICT: Pleasant Valley (2)
CENSUS TRACT: 22.04
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None were requested.
BACKGROUND:
On January 30, 1990 the owner presented a request to the
Commission for approval of a PCD that would have housed the
business called "Ballonacy" plus some office space. The
Commission recommended the request be approved after having
deferred it and holding a second meeting on February 13, 1990.
The zoning at that time was R-2 and recommended for PCD.
STAFF UPDATE
Ordinance No. 15,844 states: "...this Ordinance shall take
effect and be in full force upon... approval of the (final) plan
by the Planning Commission." Section 36-454(d) of the Code of
Ordinances states: "The applicant shall have three (3) years
from the date of the preliminary plan approval to submit the
final ... plan.,, "Failure of the applicant to file (a request for
a time extension) may result in revocation of the approval."
Development of the PCD was never undertaken, with no final plan
having been submitted for approval. Notice was given the current
owner with no response received.
FILE NO.: S-25$2 Cont.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996)
After a brief discussion, the Commission determined to place this
item on the Consent Agenda for approval in as much as there were
no issues or consequences to discuss. There were no objectors
and no interest expressed by the owner. A motion to approve the
Consent Agenda for approval was passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 nays and 1 absent.
2
February 13, 1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A
FILE NO.: Z-5282
NAME: Plunkett Commercial PCD
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Rodney Parham and Green
Mountain Drive intersection.
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Fred Plunkett The Mehlburger Firm
5912 "R" Street P. O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR 72203
663-7508 375-5331
AREA: 0.81 acre NUMBER OFLOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: PCD - Retail shop with
office/retail expansion
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 - Pleasant Valley
CENSUS TRACT: 22.04
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The owner's intent for this project is to build a small
retail/office building on the southern portion of the site.
The building will be one story containing 4000 square feet
and consist of steel frame with masonry construction. It
will also have a covered walkway along the front of the
building which will be facing the west property line. The
walkway will extend the entire length of the building
connecting the parking area and sheltering the entries to
the various shops and offices.
The building is presently being planned in two phases. The
first phase, 1800 square feet, will be owner occupied
(Balloonacy). The second phase, 2200 square feet, will be
for lease through the owner.
The floodway along the east property line is going to be
modified. Plantings will be used between it and the parking
and building for screening.
1
February 13, 1990
S UBD I V I S I.ON
Item _ NP.... A (Continued)
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
This application involves a single lot which is
proposed in Phase I as a retail store and office space.
The second phase will be leased to commercial
businesses compatible with the nearby residential area.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
..................................................................................................
The site is currently covered with scrub brush and
small trees. The adjacent streets are developed on the
south to City standards and on the west Rodney Parham
is substandard. The property is surrounded by
commercial on the east and south, and residential on
the north and west.
C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
............................................................................._......_..m_ .................
An engineering report on proposed floodway
modifications will be required and must be approved
by the City of Little Rock and Corps of Engineers.
Traffic Engineering is preparing intersection design
for this corner. Detention and excavation ordinances
not applicable. Right of way and improvements to minor
arterial standards will be required for the north
Rodney Parham Road frontage. Engineering comments on
proposed setback reductions is reserved pending review
of specific requests.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL,(DESIGN:
There are several issues of concern relative to the
site plan, the first being setbacks. The developer
proposes 15 foot setbacks from the property lines and
no setback from the floodway. According to City
regulations, setbacks shall be 25 feet from the
property line and 25 feet from the floodway. It
appears that this site may be too small to be
developed.
A survey showing the floodway should be provided. An
engineering report on proposed floodway modification
will be required.
2
February 13, 1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No, A_(,Continued)
E. ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Engineering staffs have thoroughly
reviewed this plan and there are a number of concerns.
First, we would like to state that a report on proposed
floodway modification will be required and must be
approved by City Engineering and the Corps of
Engineers. A second concern is the setback
requirement. Although this is a PUD, we feel strict
adherence to the commercial bulk and area standards is
a must on this difficult site. Conformance to these
dimensions will demand a less intense use and building.
Finally, the staff view of this proposal is that the
materials filed by the Engineer for the PCD review are
somewhat sketchy in nature. We would suggest that the
engineer have a more detailed plan developed in concert
with the parking, drive improvements and building
dimensions.
F . STAFF ._.REC4MKEND.ATI0N :
The staff reserves its recommendation on this item in
order to further develop the application, the
information provided and our position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (January 18, 1990)
The application was represented. The engineer of the
project presented his site plan and offered reasons for the
various design elements presented. A lengthy discussion of
the proposal followed during which time the Committee and
staff determined that a floodway study and the reduction of
building square footage would be necessary for this small
site.
There was a lengthy discussion of the means of right-of-way
dedication to the City and reduction of setbacks. Several
comments were made by Committee members.and staff to the
effect that they felt the proposed building is too close to
Rodney Parham. The engineer offered comments concerning his
proposal on the site related to right-of-way dedication and
moving the building further north on the property. He
indicated that the site is only 40 foot wide on the north
end. He also stated that they are willing to work with the
City to solve these problems.
3
r
r.
February 13, 1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No. A (Continued)
Comments from the Engineering Department were offered. It
was pointed out that the City would require the right-of-way
dedication and half of the street improvements as a part of
a future project widening Hinson Road and North Rodney
Parham.
The Planning staff agreed to a compromise with setbacks from
the floodway and the street but the engineer of the project
needs to work on the building site, moving the building
further north and reducing the square footage. The engineer
of the project agreed to revise the site plan and submit it
to the Planning office for review before Thursday noon.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 30, 1990)
..............._.................................... .................... ........... _........................ ......................
The applicant was present. The Planning staff offered a new
expanded recommendation on this proposal as follows.
The Planning staff approves Phase I, 3100 square feet, but
feels that Phase II, an additional 2400 square feet, is too
much for this small site. The Planning staff
recommendations are under the condition that the floodway
will be channelized with concrete lines on both sides.
Additionally, from the land use point of view, this land
shows an office area. According to the developer's letter,
this will consist mostly of retail space. Staff concerns
are traffic problems.
Mr. Jerry Gardner of the Public Works department stated that
he would like to see an engineering study proving that the
floodway can be channelized. He also said if the floodway
can be channelized, with this type of improvement, the need
for the setbacks becomes much less important. He also added
that a setback of 25 feet from the floodway is just to allow
for floodway maintenance.
Commissioner Joe Selz asked Jerry Gardner how the proposed
curb cuts would affect the traffic pattern on Rodney Parham.
Jerry Gardner stated the traffic is from east to the west
and north. The street improvements the developer would have
to do will be half of a five lane future street. He also
pointed out that entrance to the parking lot will be direct
one way; proposed arrangements would add a right -turn lane.
4
February 13, 1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No. A (Continued
Mr. Wes Lauder, the engineer on the project, then addressed
the Commission, answering questions concerning use of the
building. He stated that the owner of this property also
owns Balloonacy and that will be the only retail store in
this building. He said that the owner agreed to prohibit
the rest of the building from retail use. He also pointed
out that expenses with channelizing the floodway and street
improvements would require at least. 4500 square feet to make
the project affordable.
A brief discussion then followed concerning the size and use
of the building. Mr. Burt McAninch, property owner directly
north, said that he has a floodway problem on his property.
He objected to the traffic problem and floodway relocation.
He stated that the floodway backed up to his property after
a parking lot was built east of his property.
Mr. Randy Alexander, of the McKay Company directly east of
said property, stated that channelizing the floodway would
eliminate another 3-4 parking spaces from his property which
is already limited. He would like to know more about
channelizing the floodway and the possible impact on his
property.
A lengthy discussion of the proposal then followed with
comments from Commissions to gain more information about
channelizing the floodway and protecting abutting property
owners. A motion to defer this item for two weeks to the
February 13, 1990 agenda was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
5
(Continued)
Mr. Wes Lauder., the engineer on the project, then addressed
the Commission, answering questions concerning use of the
building. He stated that the owner of this property also
owns Balloonacy and that will be the only retail store in
this building. He said that the owner agreed to prohibit
the rest of the building from retail use. He also pointed
out that expenses with channelizing the floodway and street
improvements would require at least 4500 square feet to make
the project affordable.
A brief discussion then followed concerning the size and use
of the building. Mr. Burt McAninch, property owner directly
north, said that he has a floodway problem on his property.
He objected to the traffic problem and floodway relocation.
He stated that the floodway backed up to his property after
a parking lot was built east of his property.
Mr. Randy Alexander, of the McKay Company directly east of
said property, stated that channelizing the floodway would
eliminate another 3-4 parking spaces from his property which
is already limited. He would like to know more about
channelizing the floodway and the possible impact on his
property.
A lengthy discussion of the proposal then followed with -
comments from Commissions to gain more information about
channelizing the floodway and protecting abutting property
owners. A motion to defer this item for two weeks to the
February 13, 1990 agenda was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 13, 1990)
......................................_._.............................................._...........................
The applicant was present. The Planning staff offered its
recommendation on this proposal as follows. The Planning
staff recommendation remains the same. Staff supports
Phase I as a Balloonacy and office use by owner but denial
of Phase II. Staff's recommendation is based on the
condition that the floodway will be channelized.
Mr. Jim Lawson stated that he spoke with Mr. Randy Alexander
of McKay & Company. Mr. Alexander does not have any
problems with channelizing the floodway after meeting with
Mr. Jerry Gardner of Public Works and Mr. Wes Lauder of the
Mehlburger firm on the site. Mr. Lauder, the engineer of
5
I t l !
_(„Continued)
the project, stated that Mr. Gardner and the occupants of
said property met on the site to discuss floodway
channelization.
Tho Chairman then asked Mr. Lauder what he thinks about the
lack of support for Phase II. He said that the project
would not be viable for his client to develop just Phase I;
his client his looking for full development.
Mr. Jim Lawson asked the applicant to define what would be
in Phase.I and II of the development. Mr. Lauder stated
that his client agrees to use Phase I for Balloonacy and his
office and Phase II for office.
There was a lengthy discussion of the means of variances if
the applicant applies for rezoning. Several comments were
made by Commissioners and staff to the effect that the
project is a good development and variances become less
important.
Beth Zauner of the Mehlburger firm clarified that the total
square footage for Phase I will be 2300 square feet which
will include 2000 square feet for Balloonacy and 300 square
feet for office. Phase II will be 2400 square feet and will
be office use only. l
A motion was made to approve Phase I and II with Phase I
limited to Balloonacy (2000 square feet for retail and
300 square feet for office use) and Phase 11 (2400 square
feet) limited to office use only. The applicant also agreed
to channelize the floodway and make all street improvements.
Tlie motion was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay, I absent
and 0 abstention.
IN