Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0157-H Staff AnalysisJanuary 2, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S-651 NAME: Lot 1-R, Hooper Bond Addition, Phase I Replat/Final LOCATION: Northwest corner of West Markham and Shackleford ENGINEER/DEVELOPER: C. J. Cropper 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 320 Little Rock, AR 72211 228-9600 AREA: 1.06 acre NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C-3" PROPOSED USES: Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 1-430 CENSUS TRACT: 24.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The proposal consists of a two -lot replat out of a larger lot. The plat, as submitted, is proposed for commercial buildings. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently occupied by a J&J Piano store and paved parking lot. The only vehicle entrance to the property will be through Lot 7 located directly west which is under the same ownership. There are a number of utility easements crossing this side. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Plat as submitted does not show access from a dedicated street. Engineering has been asked to make preliminary review of a proposed site plan with multiple buildings, different easement configuration. Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies. 1 January 2, 1990 SUBDIVISION Item No. A (Continued) ........... ..................................... . D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: 1. Provision of a tie to existing street should be reflected upon this plat. 2. Include letter from Waste Water to allow parking on the easement. 3. Include all involved lots on the plat. 4. Record legal access. E. ANALYSIS: This plat is a conventional subdivison plat. The submittal contains many deletions or omissions from the submittal requirements. There are many unanswered questions at this time which suggests to staff that we cannot offer a definite recommendation as to the design or layout. There are several points in Item D above which, is the applicant intends to carry out, will need to be resolved. As a follow-up to the Engineering comments above, the staff would also like to point out that the proposed site plan with two buildings should be considered before the preliminary plat can be approved. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff feels that, at this time, the preliminary plat should be denied. We would suggest further that this proposal be refiled in proper form in order to allow for resolution of the several items indicated above. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (November 30, 1989) The applicant was present. The staff offered a brief overview of the problems in the review of this plat submittal. It was pointed out that the two issues of greater concern involved access, both physically and legally, to this lot. The staff also added the owners abutting the easement must sign the plat in order to assure that all parties and interests have been granted the appropriate public access easement and described in the title instruments. 2 January 2, 1990 SUBDIVISION Item No. A (Continued) Jerry Gardner from the Public Works department questioned the security of this easement drive and cars parking off the easement backing up on the easement. He stated that this can cause potential accidents in the future. He suggested redesigning the parking on Lot 7. Richard Wood of the Planning staff also pointed out that an additional four feet of landscaping between Lot 7 and Lot 1 would be required. The remaining issue was that of including Lot 1 on the plat. The developer admitted that the owner of Lot 1, Mr. Nichols, does not agree to the inclusion of his property on this plat. He also stated that in order to have access from the public street, he would have to move water lines and lower the existing ground. Mr. Wood pointed out that the Planning Commission needs to consider two issues. The Planning Commission needs to decide if the Commission wants to deal with -a difficult case and recommend to the City Board waivers of all basic standards of the Subdivision Ordinance, or allow it to be platted as an illegal lot as this lot no longer has a lot description. - The staff agreed to call the owner of J & J Piano, Mr. Nichols, to let him know about the above situation. Mr. Nichols will be advised to be present at the December 12th meeting. There being no further discussion, the matter was forwarded to the full Commission for resolution. PLANNING_.COMMISSI.ON ACTION: (December 12, 1989) The application was represented by Mr. David Henry, the applicant's attorney. The Planning staff presented its recommendation of denial as an illegal subdivision. The Chairman then asked Mr. Henry to present the application. Mr. Henry offered a lengthy presentation wherein he addressed the staff's comments. He stated that the applicant does not have control over the property to the north to make it a legal subdivision. According to Mr. Henry, Mr. Nichols, the owner of Lot 1, is opposed to the present circumstances. 3 January 2, 1990 SUBD I_V I S I.ON Item No. A Continued) Mr. Henry added that, in the past, part of Lot 1 was sold to Mr. Nichols as an illegal lot by Hooper Bond Addition. These two lots had been platted and sold by purchase agreement. Ms. Meredith Catlett spoke for Mr. Nichols in opposition. She was concerned about the future development of this property. The Commission chairman then asked the next listed objector present, Mr. Nichols, to present his position. Mr. Nichols offered concerns about future development of this steep and narrow lot. He felt that the deep cut could damage his building located eight feet from the property line. He indicated that he would like to purchase the property or obtain more information as to how this property would be developed in the future. Jim Lawson, Planning Director, added that this lot needed to be carefully developed as it is only 107 feet wide and 430 feet long with a very steep bank toward West Markham Street. Commissioner McDaniel then inserted a comment to the effect that he would like to ask the Commission and City Attorney how to make this lot legal. This was not immediately resolved. Mr. Henry then offered additional commentary that Mr. Nichols is trying to take economic advantage of the present location of Lot 1-R to purchase it for a lower price than its present market price. Jim Lawson suggested making Lot 1-R a part of Lot 7 by replatting. Commissioner Martha Miller requested deferral until the involved parties resolved their problems. Commissioner Rector asked the Assistant City Attorney for legal input on this matter. Mr. Giles agreed to review the issue. A motion was then made to defer this matter to the January 2, 1990 Planning Commission agenda in order to permit the involved parties, City Attorney and Planning staff additional time to respond to the issues, legal aspect, future development and other elements associated with this proposal. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention (John McDaniel). 4 January 2, 1990 SUBDIVISION J. t em No . A ( Cogt i nuedJ _--__ __ PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 2, 1990) The Planning staff offered a brief comment on the staff recommendation and pointed out options which would be considered by the Planning Commission. The application was represented by Mr. Henry, the applicant's attorney. He asked the Commission to approve the application with recommendation to the City Board of Directors for the variances. Mr. George Pike, representing the adjoining land and property owners, objected to approval as not proper for existing conditions. Commissioner Nicholson asked Mr. Pike to present objections that he had and those of his clients. Mr. Pike stated that the property is located on a very steep slope and does not have access from either Markham or Shackleford. He also pointed out that future development may cause structural damage to his property if the owner decided to make deep cuts. Commissioner Schlereth asked if Mr. Pike and his client had a solution or alternatives for the present situation. Mr. Pike suggested that Lot 1 be platted with Lot 7 and require site plan review before future development. Mr. John Nichols, the owner, then offered comments concerning the future development. He also added that he would like to purchase this property and leave it undeveloped. Ms. Nichols also expressed her concerns about future development cut of the steep hill which might possibly damage her building and access to the property. A brief discussion then followed involving several of the Commissioners and Ms. Nichols dealing with the price of the property she had offered in the past. The Commissioners then asked the Planning staff if this lot is a buildable site. Mr. Wood stated he has seen the site plan which would be reviewed in the future. Chairman Martha Miller asked the staff to restate the options the staff recommended. Mr. Wood determined there are three options: (1) The Planning Commission can deny the plat. 5 January 2, 1990 S UBD,I V I S I ON Item No. A (Continued) (2) The Planning Commission can approve the request for the platting of this property which would modify the preliminary plat, authorize this lot as a final plat, and submit this proposal to the Board of Directors with variance request for exclusion of the remaining lot, that the ordinance will embody language dealing with recognizing this lot as a lot of record. Mr. Wood also stated that this means the City of Little Rock would recognize the property on the north as a legal lot and accept the circumstance as is. (3) The third option would be to recognize by ordinance the continuing nonconforming or illegal lot to be resolved by the owners at a future time. Several attempts at a motion were made resulting in a motion for approval of the preliminary plat as a final plat with recommendation to the Board of Directors to grant the variance excluding the remainder of Lot 1 from the plat and making it a nonconforming illegal lot. The motion also included a recommendation to the Board of Directors that the developer be required site plan review, compliance with Public Works -department requirements and provide appropriate property access easement as described in the title instrument through Lot 7. The vote was offered on the motion as made. The vote produced 6 ayes, 3 noes, and 2 abstentions. N January 2, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S-651 NAME: Lot 1-R, Hooper Bond Addition, Phase I Replat/Final ...................... LOCATION: Northwest corner of West Markham and Shackleford ENGINEER/DEVELOPER: C. J. Cropper 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 320 Little Rock, AR 72211 228-9600 AREA: 1.06 acre NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 . FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C-3" PROPOSED USES: Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 1-430 CENSUS TRACT: 24.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The proposal consists of a two -lot replat out of a larger lot. The plat, as submitted, is proposed for commercial buildings. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently occupied by a J&J Piano store and paved parking lot. The only vehicle entrance to the property will be through Lot 7 located directly west which is under the same ownership. There are a number of utility easements crossing this side. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Plat as submitted does not show access from a dedicated street. Engineering has been asked to make preliminary review of a proposed site plan with multiple buildings, different easement configuration. Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies. i January 2, 1990 SUBDIVISION Item No. A (Continued) D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL./DESIGN: 1. Provision of a tie to existing street should be reflected upon this plat. 2. Include letter from Waste Water to allow parking on the easement. 3. Include all involved lots on the plat. 4. Record legal access. E. ANALYSIS: This plat is a conventional subdivison plat. The submittal contains many deletions or omissions from the submittal requirements. There are many unanswered questions at this time which suggests to staff that we cannot offer a definite recommendation as to the design or layout. There are several points in Item D above which, is the applicant intends to carry out, wi ! ­ecd to be resolved. As a follow-up to the Engineering comments above, the staff would also like to point out that the proposed site plan with two buildings should be considered before the preliminary plat can be approved. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff feels that, at this time, the preliminary plat should be denied. We would suggest further that this proposal be refiled in proper form in order to allow for resolution of the several items indicated above. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (November 30, 1989) The applicant was present. The staff offered a brief overview of the problems in the review of this plat submittal. It was pointed out that the two issues of greater concern involved access, both physically and legally, to this lot. The staff also added the owners abutting the easement must sign the plat in order to assure that all parties and interests have been granted the appropriate public access easement and described in the title instruments. 2 January 2, 1990 SUBDIVISION. Item No. A (Continued) Jerry Gardner from the Public Works department questioned the security of this easement drive and cars parking off the easement backing up on the easement. He stated that this can cause potential accidents in the future. He suggested redesigning the parking on Lot 7. Richard Wood of the Planning staff also pointed out that an additional four feet of landscaping between Lot 7 and Lot 1 would be required. The remaining issue was that of including Lot 1 on the plat. The developer admitted that the owner of Lot 1, Mr. Nichols, does not agree to the inclusion of his property on this plat. He also stated that in order to have access from the public street, he would have to move water lines and lower the existing ground. Mr. Wood pointed out that the Planning Commission needs to consider two issues. The Planning Commission needs to decide if the Commission wants to deal with a difficult case and recommend to the City Board waivers of all basic standards of the Subdivision Ordinance, or allow it to be platted as an illegal lot as this lot no longer has a lot description. The staff agreed to call the owner of J & J Piano, Mr. Nichols, to let him know about the above situation. Mr. Nichols will be advised to be present at the December 12th meeting. There being no further discussion, the matter was forwarded to the full Commission for resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (December 12, 1989) The application was represented by Mr. David Henry, the applicant's attorney. The Planning staff presented its recommendation of denial as an illegal subdivision. The Chairman then asked Mr. Henry to present the application. Mr. Henry offered a lengthy presentation wherein he addressed the staff's comments. He stated that the applicant does not have control over the property to the north to make it a legal subdivision. According to Mr. Henry, Mr. Nichols, the owner of Lot 1, is opposed to the present circumstances. 3 January 2, 1990 SUBDIVISION Item No. A „_(Co.ntinued) Mr. Henry added that, in the past, part of Lot 1 was sold to Mr. Nichols as an illegal lot by Hooper Bond Addition. These two lots had been platted and sold by purchase agreement. Ms. Meredith Catlett spoke for Mr. Nichols in opposition_ She was concerned about the future development of this property. The Commission chairman then asked the next listed objector present, Mr. Nichols, to present his position. Mr. Nichols offered concerns about future development of this steep and narrow lot. He felt that the deep cut could damage his building located eight feet from the property line. He indicated that he would like to purchase the property or obtain more information as to how this property would be developed in the future. Jim Lawson, Planning Director, added that this lot needed to be carefully developed as it is only 107 feet wide and 430 feet long with a very steep bank toward West Markham Street. Commissioner McDaniel then inserted a comment to the effect that he would like to ask the Commission and City Attorney hotiv to make this lot legal. This was not immediately resolved. Mr. Henry then offered additional commentary that Mr. Nichols is trying to take economic advantage of the present location of Lot 1-R to purchase it for a lower price than its present market price. Jim Lawson suggested making Lot 1-R a part of Lot 7 by replatting. Commissioner Martha Miller requested deferral until the involved parties resolved their problems. Commissioner Rector asked the Assistant City Attorney for legal input on this matter. Mr. Giles agreed to review the issue. A motion was then made to defer this matter to the January 2, 1990 Planning Commission agenda in order to permit the involved parties, City Attorney and Planning staff additional time to respond to the issues, legal aspect, future development and other elements associated with this proposal. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention (John McDaniel). 4 January 2, 1990 SUBDIVISION Item No. A ( Cont inued).__—_ PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 2, 1990) The Planning staff offered a brief comment on the staff recommendation and pointed out options which would be considered by the Planning Commission. The application was represented by Mr. Henry, the applicant's attorney. He asked the Commission to approve the application with recommendation to the City Board of Directors for the variances. Mr. George Pike, representing the adjoining land and property owners, objected to approval as not proper for existing conditions. Commissioner Nicholson asked Mr. Pike to present objections that he had and those of his clients. Mr. Pike stated that the property is located on a very steep slope and does not have access from either Markham or Shackleford. He also pointed out that future development may cause structural damage to his property if the owner decided to make deep cuts. Commissioner Schlereth asked if Mr. Pike and his client had a solution or alternatives for the present situation. Mr. Pike suggested that Lot 1 be platted with Lot 7 and require site plan review before future development. Mr. John Nichols, the owner, then offered comments concerning the future development. He also added that he would like to purchase this property and leave it undeveloped. Ms. Nichols also expressed her concerns about future development cut of the steep hill which might possibly damage her building and access to the property. A brief discussion then followed involving several of the Commissioners and Ms. Nichols dealing with the price of the property she had offered in the past. The Commissioners then asked the Planning staff if this lot is a buildable site. Mr. Wood stated he has seen the site plan which would be reviewed in the future. Chairman Martha Miller asked the staff to restate the options the staff recommended. Mr. Wood determined there are three options: (1) The Planning Commission can deny the plat. 5 January 2, 1990 SUBDIVISION Item No. A Continued (2) The Planning Commission can approve the request for the platting of this property which would modify the preliminary plat, authorize this lot as a final plat, and submit this proposal to the Board of Directors with variance request for exclusion of the remaining lot, that the ordinance will embody language dealing with recognizing this lot as a lot of record. Mr. Wood also stated that this means the City of Little Rock would recognize the property on the north as a legal lot and accept the circumstance as is. (3) The third option would be to recognize by ordinance the continuing nonconforming or illegal lot to be resolved by the owners at a future time. Several attempts at a motion were made resulting in a motion for approval of the preliminary plat as a final plat with recommendation to the Board of Directors to grant the variance excluding the remainder of Lot 1 from the plat and making it a nonconforming illegal lot. The motion also included a recommendation to the Board of Directors that the developer be required site plan review, compliance with Public Works department requirements and provide appropriate property access easement as described in the title instrument through Lot 7. The vote was offered on the motion as made. The vote produced 6 ayes, 3 noes, and 2 abstentions. C: