Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0274 Staff AnalysisNovember 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 --File-No,. 274 NAME: LOCATION: REQUEST: TlF'17VT_nnPn Bill Darby Replat, Lots 1 and 2 West of Kavanaugh, Darby Place and Brownwood Road Dedication of additional streets, and reduction of Lots 1 and 2 to acreage. APPLICANT/ENGINEER: William H. Darby, Jr. Sam Davis 51 Saxony Circle 5301 West 8th Street Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72204 Phone: 664-0324 AREA: 2.35 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. -OF -NEW STREET: 100 ZONING: "R-5" PROPOSED USES: Multifamily VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. STAFF REPORT: This submission represents property and/or a portion of property that has been before the Commission on several occasions. It was platted years ago as a part of Blocks 2,. and 3, Plunkett's Subdivision of Forest Park Addition to the City of Little Rock. In more recent actions, on April 1, 1970, and April 2, 1971, the Commission approved rezonings from Single Family to Multifamily and Commercial, conditioned upon denial of access to Darby Place. The rezonings were initiated for,the development of Phase 2, of the English Village Apartment Complex. A newspaper clipping from the Board meeting and Planning Commission minutes reflect that the neighborhood was extremely vocal and protested intensely against the proposal; citing such reasons as drainage from the site flooding their yards, lack of screening between their properties and the tennis courts, increase in traffic, noise, and lowering of property values, etc. November 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued The applicant is now requesting that some previously platted lots be reduced to acreage, creating Lots 1 and 2 of the new proposal; and that he be allowed to dedicate additional street right-of-way as indicated on the sketch, thereby opening up access to the property. Both of the proposed lots are currently undeveloped, except for tennis courts on a portion of Lot 2. Clearly, the issues here revolve around access and the potential for neighborhood opposition. A legal question is posed, since to give him access to Darby Place would violate previous actions of the Planning Commission, which were intended to protect the neighborhood. The applicant also has not submitted adequate information for a thorough review by the staff. He is asked to submit an overall development scheme and a survey indicating where this proposal lies relative to the developer's entire ownership. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: It appears that a cul-de-sac turnaround will be necessary, although difficult, due to the change of elevation west of the existing street pavement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral, until the applicant comes up with a comprehensive developmental scheme and some decision is rendered on whether or not this requires public notice. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The applicant was not present. The Committee decided to pass this item to the Commission without recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-12-82) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission decided that the neighboring property -owners should be notified by means of a zoning notification form as opposed to that used by subdivisions since it includes those persons within 200' of the development. A motion was made for: (1) deferral for 30 days based upon staff's recommendation and (2) notification to property -owners. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. November 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: (10-28-82) The applicant and his engineer, Mr. Sam Davis, were present. They submitted a development scheme indicating the construction of 70 units of apartments. The Committee instructed the developer to get together with the City engineers and explore the potential for access connections to Cantrell Road. Staff reported that the Fire Chief would have to approve the new plan. The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission without recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Twenty-four persons were present in opposition. A lengthy discussion was held, during which several spokespersons from the neighborhood were heard. Several petitions in opposition to the development were submitted. The objectors speaking were: (1) Ms. Iris Henry, of 2016 Brownwood; (2) Mr. Tom Milton,. the owner of a duplex on Brownwood Road; (3) Ms. Pam Gentry; (4) Ms. Barden; (5) Mr.' Don Ichenbaum, of Gene Lockwood's Sportsmart; (6) Mr. Tom Rogers, of 2025 Brownwood; and (7) Mr. Arthur Johnson, representing his mother, who is the owner of abutting apartments. Objection was based on several factors; which included increased noise/traffic and density, devaluation of property, exacerbation of an existing and hazardous traffic situation, drainage concerns, and the previous conditions set by the Planning Commission. The City Attorney responded to a question posed by the Commission by stating that a dangerous precedent would be set if the Commission is disregarded a previous Planning Commission action. He felt that this request was not substantial enough to warrant discrediting the prior action. A motion was made and passed for denial. The vote was: 0 ayes, 9 noes and 1 open position.