The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZ-6220 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-6220 NAME: Jewel and Moser Addition - Short -Form PD -O - Revocation LOCATION: 155 feet East of the SE corner of Cantrell Road and Sam Peck Road DEVELOPER: Jewel, Moser, Fletcher and Holleman 111 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 1.4 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PD -O ALLOWED USES: Office PROPOSED USE: Office A. BACKGROUND: On March 4,1 1997, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 17,412 rezoning the proposed Lot 1, Jewel and Moser Addition from 0-2 to PD -O to allow an office development. The approved PD -O allowed a single office building and parking areas, with a shared access drive from Cantrell Road between this property and the property immediately east. To this date, the site is vacant and undeveloped. Some site work (grading and filling) was previously done on a portion of the site. B. PROPOSAL: The property owner, Jewel, Moser, Fletcher and Hollman, submitted a letter to staff on March 9, 2001, requesting that the PD -0 be officially revoked and the property revert to its original 0-2 zoning. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Pankey Community Improvement, Piedmont and Walton Heights/Candlewood Neighborhood Associations were notified FILE NO.: Z-6220 (Cont. of the public hearing. Staff has received no comments from the associations, as of this writing. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the PD -0 be revoked; that Ordinance No. 17,412 be repealed and that the property be returned to 0-2 Office and Institutional District as previously existed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 19, 2001) The staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. V, April 19, 2001 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-6220 NAME: Jewel and Moser Addition - Short -Form PD -O - Revocation LOCATION: 155 feet East of the SE corner of Cantrell Road and Sam Peck Road DEVELOPER: Jewel, Moserf Fletcher and Holleman 111 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 1.4 acres ZONING: PD -O A. BACKGROUND: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ALLOWED USES: Office PROPOSED USE: office On March 4. 1997, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 17,412 rezoning the proposed Lot 1, Jewel and Moser Addition from 0-2 to PD -0 to allow an office development. The approved PD -O allowed a single office building and parking areas, with a shared access drive from Cantrell Road between this property and the property immediately east. To this date, the site is vacant and undeveloped. Some site work (grading and filling) was previously done on a portion of the site. B. PROPOSAL: The property owner, Jewel, Moser, Fletcher and Hollman, submitted a letter to staff on March 9, 2001, requesting that the PD -O be officially revoked and the property revert to its original 0-2 zoning. April 19, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: FILE NO.: Z-6220 The Pankey Community Improvement, Piedmont and Walton Heights/Candlewood Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. Staff has received no comments from the associations, as of this writing. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the PD -0 be revoked; that Ordinance No. 171412 be repealed and that the property be returned to 0-2 Office and Institutional District as previously existed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 19, 2001) The staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. 2 FILF, NO.: Z-6220 NAME: JEWEL AND MOSER ADDITION POD LOCATION: Southeast corner of Sam Peck Road and Highway 10 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: JEWELL AND MOSER Pat MCGetrick 111 Center Street 11225 Huron Lane Little Rock, AR 72201 Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 1.4 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: 0-2 PROPOSED USES: office PLANNING DISTRICT: #1 River Mountain District CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCqL_BB QUES�TED: None BACKGROUND: The applicant filed this one lot POD in conjunction with a two lot preliminary plat (S-1119). A. PROPO A one lot single use POD to be retitled PD -0 consisting of approximately 1.4 acres. The building will be utilized for professional offices and is a single storage building with loft storage. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant. C. NEIGHBORHOOD _COMMENTS: Staff has received no responses from the public on this proposal. TP T T.17. WO - ! z-6220 (Cont ) D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: i. site is located outside the limits of detailed flood study.. It appears that new structure would be located very near an extended floodway area included in the next flood study by the Corp and FEMA. Provide plan which shows projected floodplain and floodway along with BFE's to match. 2. Permits required prior to construction. 3. Show minimum final floor elevation to match one foot above projected BFE for the staff. E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEP RT14ENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extensions with easements. Arkla: No comment Southwestern Bell: Easement requ±red. Water: Acreage and connection charges. AP&L: Easement required. Fire Department: OK County Plannir1q: No comment F. ISSUES/TECHNICA14_/DESIGN: Landscape: Areas set aside for landscaping meet with Landscape ordinance requirements. Portions of the eastern and western landscape buffers drop below 25 feet in width but meet the Highway 10 Overlay District requirement when averaged out. A sprinkler system to water plants is required. it will be necessary to install curb and gutter or another border to protect plants from vehicular traffic. Trees with an average spacing of 20 feet are required along Highway 10 by the Overlay ordinance. Issues: 0 Signage to comply with overlay district guidelines. 6 FILE NO.: Z-6220 Wont.) Planning DLy_ision: The site is located in the River Mountain District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends office use. There are no land use issues. G. ANALYSIS: At the request of Planning Staff, the applicant has amended his request to include only Lot 1. Since the request is now one lot single use, staff recommends that the application be changed to a PD -O. The current zoning for the site is R-2; however, the Land Use Plan recommends office use. The developer proposes to provide access from Highway 10 via a joint access which runs to the east of Lot 1. This access point was created as an easement from Lot 44, Piedmont Subdivision Phase II. Staff does not object to this proposed access. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: APPROVAL of a one lot single proposal site plan. Approval listed in paragraphs D, E and SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: use PD -0 as illustrated on the is subject to conditions F of this report. (OCTOBER 31, 1996) Pat McGetrick presented the proposed rezoning to the Committee for review. Staff asked Mr. McGetrick to exclude Lot 2 from the POD request since there are no specific plans for that parcel. The Committee referred the POD request to the November 21, 1996 Planning commission meeting for determination. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 21, 1996) Larry Jones presented the staff report. Mr. Pat McGetrick was available to answer questions. Mr. Jim Pfeifer, a resident of the Piedmont Subdivision, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. He is concerned that the proposed building will use a shared driveway with a residential lot. He also objected to the possible development of a site less than two acres in size. Mr. Brent Peterson, a Piedmont Lane resident, stated that he was not notified of the hearing. He is concerned about traffic and flooding problems in the area. He stated that he would like a deferral to learn more about the project. 3 fl Z-6220 (Cont.) _ �LE N �O- � � commissioner Berry asked if the two acre minimum has been bypassed through the use of the Planned Development rezoning. Mr. Lawson said that.a number of commercial developments less than two acres in size have been approvea along Highway 10. He stated that this was the result of the type of commercial proposals requested. commissioners Daniel and Adcock stated that they preferred a deferral of this item since Mr. Peterson said he was not notified. commissioner McCarthy asked a question concerning use of the residential pipe -stem lot for access of this office project. Mr. Lawson responded that this rezoning and plat was not creating the pipe -stem. Ms. Lou Teeter, a neighborhood resident, is concerned about flooding in the area. She requested a deferral of the item. A motion to approve the rezoning subject to conditions in the staff report. Motion failed with 4 ayes, 5 nays and 2 absent. A motion to expunge the previous vote. Motion passed with 8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent. Motion to defer the item until the January 9, 1997 Planning Commission hearing. Motion passed with 8 ayes, I nay and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 9, 1997) Larry Jones introduced the project to the commission. He indicated that Pat McGetrick would summarize his communications with the neighbors since the November 21, 1996 Planning commission meeting. Mr. McGetrick stated that because of the holiday season he had not been able to schedule a meeting with the neighbors. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 23, 1997) Larry Jones stated that Mr. Pat McGetrick had met with the affected neighbors on January 14, 1997 to discuss access from the pipe -stem. The neighbors and applicant have agreed on a site plan revision whereby the pipe -stem access will not extend more than 200 feet south of Highway 10. A revised site plan was submitted on January 22, 1997 that reflects this change. After the brief staff presentation this item was added by the Chairman to the Consent Approval agenda. The rezoning was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 4