The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutS-0285-F ApplicationrM CENTRE CORPORATION Edward K. Willis President January 8, 1991 Mr. Jim Lawson Planning Director City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Lawson: In connection with Barksdale McKay's PCD application for a con- venience store to be located at the Northwest corner of Highway #10 and Kattillus Road you have requested us to provide a Preliminary Plat for the remaining property in the FCC Tract A Partnership tract spe- cifying the manner in which the remaining lots are to be marketed in order to avoid having to obtain the approval of the Little Rock Planning Commission or Board of Directors with regard to platting any property shown on the Preliminary Plat. Enclosed is a copy of the Preliminary Plat showing the following three lots: (1) Lot 1 - the Barksdale McKay lot consisting of approximately 51,976 square feet (or 1.1932 acres) for a con- venience store with gas pumps and car wash. This lot will have one 40 foot curb cut as shown on the Preliminary Plat. (2) Lot 2 - the balance of the FCC Tract A Partnership tract consisting of 422,323 square feet (or 9.6952 acres). This site will have one 40 foot curb cut in the approximate location as shown on the Preliminary Plat (exact location to be determined at time pro- perty requiring said curb cut occurs). This curb cut can be a common drive providing internal cir- culation to two or more lots. The existing 50 foot OS zone would become a 40 foot landscape buffer to conform to the subsequently adopted Highway #10 Plan and Overlay Ordinance and shall be rezoned as needed. (3) Lot 3 - Ranch Properties, Inc. tract containing 50,000 square feet (or 1.1478 acres) that is reserved for the City of Little Rock to use as a fire station, library or other municipal use in accordance with an Agreement dated February 19, 1985. This property will have access from Kattillus Road. THREE FINANCIAL CENTRE -- P.O. BOX 56350 -- LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72215 -- (501) 224-9600 Mr. Jim Lawson January 8, 1991 Page 2. With regard to the marketing of Lot 2, it is anticipated that this lot will be subdivided into smaller lots as the market demand dictates. A portion of Lot 2 is within the 300 foot limit of Highway #10 and is therefore subject to the Highway 10 Overlay Ordinance and therefore development of this portion of the property will need to conform to the Overlay Ordinance requirements or else obtain a PCD application approval. The remainder of the property is outside the Overlay District and therefore will not be subject to any of the Overlay Ordinance requirements. There will be curb cuts along Ranch Drive as required by the developers of the various lots. We anticipate subdividing Lot 2 in additional lots as market conditions dictate. We expect to maintain a coordinated development with a com- bination of large and small lots, however, the smallest lot would be a minimum of 140 feet frontage and 150 feet depth or a minimum size of 21,000 square feet. In summary, it is our understanding that by this letter, you have agreed to the following: (A) Provided the sale and/or development of each lot within the 300 foot boundary of the Overlay District meets the minimum require- ments of the Overlay Ordinance, the final plat approval will not require action by the Little Rock Planning Commission or Board of Directors. (B) Provided the sale and/or development of each lot outside the 300 foot boundary of ----the Overlay District meets the minimum require- ments outlined in this letter regarding size (140'x150' and 21,000 square feet) and all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the intended use, the final plat approval for any lot will not require action by -the Little Rock Planning Commission or Board of Directors. (C) You agree to rezone the 50 foot open space zone along Highway #10 to a 40 foot landscape buffer as needed. Sincerely, CG( le. -'aim , Edward K. Willis EKW/map City of Little RockIR -- Department of Neighborhood Revitalization and Planning 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 371-4790 January 10, 1991 Mr. Ed Willis Financial Centre Corporation 3 Financial Center P.O. Box 56350 Little Rock, AR 72215 Re: Barksdale McCay Planned Commercial Development Application, State Highway 10 at Katillius Road Dear Mr. Willis: Jim Lawson Director The purpose of this communication is to further emphasize the staffs position on the Barksdale McCay Planned Commercial Development, which was recommended for approval to the Board of Directors by the Planning Commission at its meeting January 8, 1991. As you are aware, a Planned Commercial District Application is a process of staff/applicant negotiation without the typical constraints of ordinance standards. In the case of Barksdale McCay, the Highway 10 Overlay District modified that process by -the establishment of additional standards to apply in all reclassification requests. The staff attempted in its several meetings with you to assure that the standards of the ordinance and other restrictions were designed in such a manner as to comply with the intent, if not the letter, of ordinances. My feeling is that since the application was presented by your agent in a form which did not conform to our agreed upon plan app:-oach, that I can no longer support the Planned Commercial District Application. It does not, in my opinion, meet either the standards or the intent of the overlay ordinance. The process, I and my staff have utilized in working with you, caused a review of the Johnson Ranch property history. The review reminded us that the Ranch properties have had from the beginning several strong commitments to controlled access along State Highway 10. In our attempt to work out a Highway 10 curb cut and other access, we realized that you were bridging an "CS49 zoned buffer,, established when you rezoned the Ranch properties. This access also utilized one of the maximum four curb cuts you committed to in your attorney's letter to the City Manager on January 15, 1985. This agreement limited you to a principal entry and the four curb cuts for the entire length of the Ranch properties on State Highway 10. In support of the current position of denial, we would point out that this was a marginally supportable request from the beginning. Our initial reaction was rejection of the application, due to its size. This size is less than the required two acres provided in the Highway 10 Overlay District. Also, there was only limited right of access to Highway 10 by any lot platted because of the "OS" strip. One of the first design problems we observed was the building encroachment upon the 100 ft. setback requirement along Highway 10. Acceptance of that encroachment during the course of our discussion, along with the other nonconformities proposed, were built into what we thought was a plan to satisfy everyone involved. Further, we would point out that a preliminary plat was very difficult to extract from you, an ordinance requirement from the beginning, due to the fact that the Johnson Ranch properties have been preliminarily platted in small components. Although a preliminary plat draft has been submitted, it will not have standing unless the package is approved by the City Board as recommended by the Planning Commission. That preliminary plat is an attachment to the Planned Commercial District Application. It is our feeling that many of the issues involved in this application could have been dealt with by the appropriate filing of a preliminary plat and development scheme at an earlier occasion. The plat could have addressed the internalized access and drive issue as recommended by your own consultant, "SWA" in a set of recommendations addressed in your memo to the City Board and Staff on March 7, 1990. Needless to say, I am disappointed in the result of the negotiations and subsequent action before the Planning Commission and feel that we have not achieved the kind of development and design approach that was required by the Highway 10 Overlay District, the Zoning Ordinance, your previous commitments to the Ranch development or Board of Directors policy for Highway 10. The development does not meet the Highway 10 Overlay requirements of: 1) building setback, 2) minimum size, 3) curb cuts, and 4) landscaping. This is the position that I will present to the Board of Directors at its scheduled meeting on February 5, 1991 at which time your application will be reviewed. Sincerely Jim Lawson, Director Dept. of Neighborhoods and Planning JL/se cc: Tom Dalton Richard Wood lria'-d Borkowski