Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0510 Staff AnalysisAugust 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-510 NAME.: Hawley Subdivision Preliminary Plat .................. LOCATION: 18201 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: David & Jeana Hawley Castin, Massie & McGetrick 18202 Cantrell Road 11225 Huron Lane, Suite 220 Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 AREA: 2.2 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: Outside City Limits PROPOSED USES: Residential/commercial mix PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Lot depth -to -width ratio. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This applicant proposes a two -lot plat involving both residential and commercial occupancy of the lots. This tract is outside the City limits and is not subject to land use regulation at this time. However, this section of Highway 10 will be zoned by the City in the near future. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site consists of one vacant building lot and a residence with some clearing of the foliage. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Improvements to State Highway No. 10 are required as a principal arterial. Stormwater detention is applicable to this plat. August 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 3 (Continued) D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The only issue in this category which will require resolution and a waiver has not been requested is the lot depth to width ratio. E. ANALYSIS: The staff feels this plat to be appropriate, given the developing circumstances in this area of State Highway No. 10. There are a number of properties which are redeveloping and accommodating the changing land use atmosphere. The owner should be aware that approval of this plat does not commit the City to commercial zoning on the site. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this plat subject to: 1. The Engineer of Record making the formal request for the variance required. 2. The deletion of building lines from the preliminary plat. If this property is zoned other than single family in the future, a greater setback may be required by the Highway 10 Plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 27, 1989) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the preliminary plat. Mr. McGetrick indicated that the staff recommendation presented no serious problem, however, he questioned the appropriateness of leaving a building line off the plat. In a brief discussion with Staff, it was pointed out that several other controlling devices including the proposed overlay zoning may require setbacks greater than the 40 foot building line indicated on these lots. The discussion then moved to the requirements for improvements along Highway 10. Jerry Gardner of the Public Works Department indicated that he would need to work with the engineer on this project and the State to determine the status of the improvements. The right-of-way has been dedicated and will fulfill Master Street Plan requirements. August 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 3 (Continued) The discussion then moved to the lot width -to -depth ratio. Mr. McGetrick indicated that he would provide a request to deal with this issue and to change his application. There being no further discussion of this plat, the item is forwarded to the full Commission for resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 8, 1989) The application was presented by Mr. Patrick McGetrick. Staff recommended approval subject to compliance with several items, i.e., road improvement, in -lieu fees. Mr. McGetrick agreed with all staff recommendations. There was an objector present, Mr. Lester Hosto, a resident of the area. Mr. Hosto's statement to the Commission is as follows: "Chairman Miller and Commission Members - I'm Lester Hosto, I reside at 18209 Cantrell which is adjacent to the property in question, immediately on the east side. I'm totally out of my element here, I know almost nothing about your procedures, your rules or your laws. I have attempted to inform myself a little bit by visiting with your staff and I've got a statement here. I've been informed by your employees that your action today has no relation to zoning. However, I notice that the property which is now residential is referred to in this application as residential/commercial. I have also been informed by your staff that no zoning laws, rules or regulations are in effect for this area at present because it is outside the City limits and the City has not exercised the five -mile zoning option. If this is true, today my concern is that I am informed this property is intended to be used as a car wash and there are no sewers in the area and the water supply is very limited. I would also add that the back part of this property is low, it has a water problem. When there is much water comes off of Chenal Valley, water tends to stand on the back part of this property. If the property is intended to be used for a commercial car wash before sewers are available and the existing water supply is increased, I would have particular problems with it and I think this is the start of a domino effect that ya'Il ought to be concerned about." August 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 3 (Continued) "This is the first step. You're going to divide this property, it's going to become planned for a car wash. If you exercise the five -mile zoning limit, in time they are going to have to come back and rezone it. If some of the other things fall into effect, they are going to have a car wash out there where you don't want one and I don't want one and, either way, I just don't see the logic in this. I would like to tell you that I was surprised that zoning was not in effect for that area. I've read the plans and I've been a resident out there for twenty years. It's a beautiful residential area and I hoped we were going to keep it that way. It looks like its going to become a Rodney Parham and I hope it doesn't. But this is - you're granting a significant variance - the one piece of property which I assume the car wash will be located on is going to have 103 foot frontage on Highway 10 and be 461 feet deep. I would question access on and off the highway for that type of a commercial piece of property and I just think that - depending on how -the dominoes fall - they are going to be back wanting it zoned commercial and you're going to have a big furor like you've had about some of the other things. I oppose it. I particularly oppose it unless there are assurances that it will not be built until there are sewers and adequate water supply out there. Right now, the only place that a car wash would drain would be into a drainage ditch area that divides my property from this property. It would go across the street, go beside two beautiful residential homes, and I just don't think that is acceptable. And right now, it seems like a lot of money is involved, the whole sale is conditional on a bunch of these things happening, and I just think it is mass confusion, and I would ask that you not approve it." Jim Lawson stated that the area has not been zoned yet as it is outside the City limits but the Planning Staff will work on the rezoning in the near future. A motion was made for denial of the preliminary plat for failure to adhere with the ordinance standard for lot depth to width ratio. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. August 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 3 (Continued) The discussion then moved to the lot width -to -depth ratio. Mr. McGetrick indicated that he would provide a request to deal with this issue and to change his application. There being no further discussion of this plat, the item is forwarded to the full Commission for resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 8, 1989) The application was presented by Mr. Patrick McGetrick. Staff recommended approval subject to compliance with several items, i.e., road improvement, in -lieu fees. Mr McGetrick agreed with all staff recommendations. There was an objector present, Mr. Lester Hosto, a resident of the area. Mr. Hosto's statement to the Commission is as follows: "Chairman Miller and Commission Members - I'm Lester Hosto, I reside at 18209 Cantrell which is adjacent to the property in question, immediately on the east side. I'm totally out of my element here, I know almost nothing about your procedures, your rules or your laws. I have attempted to inform myself a little bit by visiting with your staff and I've got a statement here. I've been informed by your employees that your action today has no relation to zoning. However, I notice that the property which is now residential is referred to in this application as residential/commercial. I have also been informed by your staff that no zoning laws, rules or regulations are in effect for this area at present because it is outside the City limits and the City has not exercised the five -mile zoning option. If this is true, today my concern is that I am informed this property is intended to be used as a car wash and there are no sewers in the area and the water supply is very limited. I would also add that the back part of this property is low, it has a water problem. When there is much water comes off of Chenal Valley, water tends to stand on the back part of this property. If the property is intended to be used for a commercial car wash before sewers are available and the existing water supply is increased, I would have particular problems with it and I think this is the start of a domino effect that ya'Il ought to be concerned about." August 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 3 (Continued "This is the first step. You're going to divide this property, it's going to become planned for a car wash. If you exercise the five -mile zoning limit, in time they are going to have to come back and rezone it. If some of the other things fall into effect, they are going to have a car wash out there where you don't want one and I don't want one and, either way, I just don't see the logic in this. I would like to tell you that I was surprised that zoning was not in effect for that area. I've read the plans and I've been a resident out there for twenty years. It's a beautiful residential area and I hoped we were going to keep it that way. It looks like its going to become a Rodney Parham and I hope it doesn't. But this is - you're granting a significant variance - the one piece of property which I assume the car wash will be located on is going to have 103 foot frontage on Highway 10 and be 461 feet deep. I would question access on and off the highway for that type of a commercial piece of property and I just think that - depending on how the dominoes fall - they are going to be back wanting it zoned commercial and you're going to have a big furor like you've had about some of the other things. I oppose it. I particularly oppose it unless there are assurances that it will not be built until there are sewers and adequate water supply out there. Right now, the only place that a car wash would drain would be into a drainage ditch area that divides my property from this property. It would go across the street, go beside two beautiful residential homes, and I just don't think that is acceptable. And right now, it seems like a lot of money is involved, the whole sale is conditional on a bunch of these things happening, and I just think it is mass confusion, and I would ask that you not approve it." Jim Lawson stated that the area has not been zoned yet as it is outside the City limits but the Planning Staff will work on the rezoning in the near future. A motion was made for denial of the preliminary plat for failure to adhere with the ordinance standard for lot depth to width ratio. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent.