HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1352 Staff AnalysisVA
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO..: 5-1352
Whitfield Addition Preliminary Plat "`�'� J `-d"'�j��
Plannins Staff Comments:
1. Provide a certified list of property owners abutting the site along with notice form,
affidavit executed, and proof of mailing.
2. Provide Source of Title.
3. Provide the proposed water supplier.
4. Provide the means of wastewater disposal.
5. Provide the names of recorded subdivisions abutting the plat area with source of title.
6. Show the names of owners of all abutting unplatted tracts in excess of 2 '/z acres..
7. Provide the zoning classification of abutting areas.
Variance/Waivers: None requested.
Public Works:
I . Whitfield Street and 40`h Street would be classified under this proposal on the Master
Street Plan as a commercial streets. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at Whitfield and West 401h and
Whitfield and Asher.
3. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct on&half
street improvement to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development.
Where Whitfield has not been constructed, pave to 2-lane width of 22'.
4. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade permit prior to
doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic Engineering at 501-379-1817
(Derrick Bergfield) for more information.
5. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Easements for proposed
stormwater detention facilities are required.
6. Property depth is not great enough to have two driveways and meet drivewayspa`ing
requirement.'
Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning:
Wastewater: Existing sewer main located on the site.
for additional details at 376-2903.
AP & L: No comment received.
AR ,LA: No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:
Approved as submitted.
Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding water service to this development. The Little
Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public
and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they
will be installed at the Developer's expense. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for
additional details.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at
918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning No comment received.
CATA: Site is located on bus route #14 and has not effect on bus radius, turnout and route.
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
Submit 4 copies of the revised plat (to include additional information as noted above) to staff no
later than Wednesday September 4, 2002.
September 19, 2002
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: S-1352
NAME: Whitfield Addition Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Asher Avenue at Whitfield Street
DEVELOPER:
Al Hougland
1100 Brockington Road
Sherwood, AR 72120
AREA: 10.27 acres
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
319 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: C-3 and MF-12
PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 — Boyle Park
CENSUS TRACT: 24.06
VARIANCESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
In May 2002, Public Works received a complaint that a number of large trees had been
cut and fill had been placed at the subject property. Upon investigation, it was found
that JCI, the owner of the property, was conducting the clearing and filling activities.
Public Works' investigation further revealed that JCI was the general contractor for the
ongoing Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department project to improve and
widen Asher Avenue. According to JCI personnel, the company purchased the property
to store equipment and place excavated material from the project and planned to sell it
at completion of the project. JCI was given a notice for violating Section 29-186 (b) of
the Little Rock code for clearing or altering land without the required permits and
ordered to remove the fill material and discontinue work until development plans had
been submitted and approved.
September 19, 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.
JCI requested a grading permit to continue
apparent construction was imminent. JCI
order.
FILE NO.: S-1352
operations and it was denied because no
was also issued a citation and stop work
The case was heard in Environmental Court on July 25, 2002. JCI pled guilty and
agreed to submit a plan of development to the Commission no later than August 12,
2002 and appeal grading permit denial. The agreement further provided JCI would
begin cleanup activities at the site.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a restoration plan and preliminary plat as the
development plan. The applicant proposes to subdivide the site into a two lot
subdivision. One of the lots will contain 4.08 acres and is zoned C-3 and the
other lot will contain 6.09 acres and is zoned MF-12. The applicant has
indicated his restoration plan will include Bermuda grass sown over the entire
site with 43 water oak trees (2 -- 2.5 inch caliper, 10 — 12 feet tall planted around
the exterior of the property. The plan also shows that 4 feet of fill will remain
along the southeastern part of the site.
The issues before the Planning Commission; whether JCI's plan (s) should be
approved and a grading permit issued based on the preliminary plat or should the
applicant also submit the proposed commercial and multi -family site plan or
should the applicant even be allowed a grading permit and should the preliminary
plat filed be approved for the subdivision of the site into two parcels.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently a vacant cleared site with a large amount of spoil from the
Asher Avenue widening project being dumped on the southern portion of the site.
Prior to the clearing of the site, the site once contained a grassed meadow with a
creek flowing north to south that was lined by mature hardwood trees.
The site gently slopes from north to south (40'h Street to Asher Avenue). There
are a few trees remaining on the northern portion of the site near West 40
Street. Whitfield Street is an unimproved roadway which dead ends prior to
reaching Asher Avenue. The City is currently widening West 40th Street as a part
of a Community Development Block Grant Project.
Other uses in the area include single-family to the north and east, a vacant
MF-12 zoned site to the west bordering single-family further to the west and
various non-residential uses to the south along Asher Avenue. The Borden
Plant, now Oxford Printing is located adjacent to Asher on the western boundary
of the site and a Hometown Grocery Store is located adjacent to Whitfield Street
to the east. The Criminal Institute is located across Asher Avenue to the south.
Pa
September 19, 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 Cont. FILE NO.: S-1352
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several phone calls from interested persons
stating objection to the proposed development. The John Barrow, the Westwood
and the Campus Place Neighborhood Associations and all property owners
within 200-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Whitfield Street and 40th Street would be classified under this proposal on
the Master Street Plan as a commercial streets. Dedicate right-of-way to
30 feet from centerline.
2. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at Whitfield and West
40th and Whitfield and Asher.
3. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan).
Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development. Where Whitfield has not been
constructed, pave to 2-lane width of 22'.
4. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade
permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic
Engineering at 501-379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more information.
5. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Easements for
proposed stormwater detention facilities are required.
6. Property depth is not great enough to have two driveways and meet
driveway spacing requirement.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Existing sewer main located on the site. Contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility for additional details at 376-2903.
AP & L: No comment received.
ARKLA: No comment received.
Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted.
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding water service to this
development. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to
determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be
required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the
Developer's expense. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for
additional details.
3
September 19, 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.
FILE NO.: S-1352
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: Site is located on bus route #14 and has not effect on bus radius, turnout
and route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(August 29, 2002)
Mr. Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present
representing the application. Staff presented the item and stated they needed
guidance from the Committee. Staff stated the applicant was currently under
enforcement for clearing a site without a land alteration permit. Staff stated the
ordinance requires the applicant to submit a development plan but does not
outline what a development plan is to contain. Staff stated the ordinance
indicates two ways of appeal; one a grading permit and the second an appeal of
the grading permit being denied.
Staff stated the applicant had filed three applications. One was for a preliminary
plat to subdivide the site into two lots and the other two consisted of a site plan
review for Lot 1 a commercially zoned site, and a site plan review for Lot 2, a
multi -family zoned site. Staff questioned if the two site plan reviews were
necessary.
After a discussion, the Committee determined the proposed plat did meet the
intent of a development plan and the other two applications were not required
unless the applicant did have intentions of developing the site, as submitted. Mr.
McGetrick stated he would contact the owner and see if he wanted to proceed
with the site plan review applications.
Staff stated the additional information required for each item had been provided.
Staff stated if there were any questions, to please contact staff for specific
guidance.
There being no further issues to discuss, the Committee then forwarded the item
to the full Commission for final action.
4
September 19, 2002
SUBDIVISION
NO.:5 (Cont.
H. ANALYSIS:
Preliminary Plat:
FILE NO.: S-1352
The applicant submitted a revised plat to staff addressing most of the issues
raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has indicated the
proposed source of the water supplier, the means of wastewater disposal and the
names of recorded subdivisions abutting the plat.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat. The proposed preliminary
plat conforms to the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The
platting along the zoning lines make logical sense for a future development
pattern for the site. Otherwise, to Staff's knowledge there are no outstanding
issues associated with the proposed preliminary plat. The proposed plat should
have no adverse impact on the area, if platted as proposed.
Land Alteration Restoration Plan:
JCI submitted plans for an apartment complex on the northern half of the
property and an unidentified commercial development on the southern half. At
the subdivision subcommittee meeting, the applicant's engineer advised that
construction of neither project would likely be forthcoming. He was advised to
submit a restoration plan instead.
The submitted restoration plan shows bermuda grass sowed over the entire site
with 43 water oak trees (2-2.5 in caliper, 10-12 ft tall) planted around the exterior
of the property. The plan also shows that 4 feet of fill will remain along the
southeastern part of the site.
Public Works has consistently taken the position that the site should be restored
as required by the ordinance.
The issue before the Planning Commission is whether JCI's plan(s) should be
approved and a grading permit issued.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
Staff recommends denial of the restoration plan.
61
October 31, 2002
ITEM NO.: F
NAME: Whitfield Addition Preliminary Plat
FILE NO.: S-1352
LOCATION: Asher Avenue at Whitfield Street
DEVELOPER:
Al Hougland
1100 Brockington Road
Sherwood, AR 72120
AREA: 10.27 acres
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
319 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: C-3 and MF-12
PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 — Boyle Park
ENSUS TRACT: 24.06
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
In May 2002, Public Works received a complaint that a number of large trees had been
cut and fill had been placed at the subject property. Upon investigation, it was found
that JCI, the owner of the property, was conducting the clearing and filling activities.
Public Works' investigation further revealed that JCI was the general contractor for the
ongoing Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department project to improve and
widen -Asher Avenue. According to JCI personnel,- the company purchased the property
to store equipment and place excavated material from the project and planned to sell it
at completion of the project. JCI was given a notice for violating Section 29-186 (b) of
the Little Rock code for clearing or altering land without the required permits and
ordered to remove the fill material and discontinue work until development plans had
been submitted and approved.
October 31, 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F Cont. FILE NO.: S-1352
JCI requested a grading permit to continue operations and it was denied because no
apparent construction was imminent. JCI was also issued a citation and stop work
order.
The case was heard in Environmental Court on July 25, 2002. JCI pled guilty and
agreed to submit a plan of development to the Commission no later than August 12,
2002 and appeal grading permit denial. The agreement further provided JCI would
begin cleanup activities at the site.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a restoration plan and preliminary plat as the
development plan. The applicant proposes to subdivide the site into a two lot
subdivision. One of the lots will contain 4.08 acres and is zoned C-3 and the
other lot will contain 6.0.9 acres and is zoned MF-12. The applicant has
indicated his restoration plan will include Bermuda grass sown over the entire
site with 43 water oak trees (2 — 2.5 inch caliper, 10 — 12 feet tall planted around
the exterior of the property. The plan also shows that 4 feet of fill will remain
along the southeastern part of the site.
The issues before the Planning Commission; whether JCI's plan (s) should be
approved and a grading permit issued based on the preliminary plat or should the
applicant also submit the proposed commercial and multi -family site plan or
should the applicant even be allowed a grading permit and should the preliminary
plat filed be approved for the subdivision of the site into two parcels.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently a vacant cleared site with a large amount of spoil from the
Asher Avenue widening project being dumped on the southern portion of the site.
Prior to the clearing of the site, the site once contained a grassed meadow with a
creek flowing north to south that was lined by mature hardwood trees.
The site gently slopes from north to south (40th Street to Asher Avenue). There
are a few trees remaining on the northern portion of the site near West 40th
Street. Whitfield Street is an unimproved roadway which dead ends prior to
reaching Asher Avenue. The City is currently widening West 40th Street as a part
of a Community Development Block Grant Project.
Other uses in the area include single-family to the north and east, a vacant
MF-12 zoned site to the west bordering single-family further to the west and
various non-residential uses to the south along Asher Avenue. The Borden
Plant, now Oxford Printing is located adjacent to Asher on the western boundary
of the site and a Hometown Grocery Store is located adjacent to Whitfield Street
to the east. The Criminal Institute is located across Asher Avenue to the south.
2
October 31, 2002
SUBDIVISION
I19ky,10rom■ MroM,
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
FILE NO.: S-1352
As of this writing staff has received several phone calls from interested persons
stating objection to the proposed development. The John Barrow, the Westwood
and the Campus Place Neighborhood Associations and all property owners
within 200-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Whitfield Street and 40th Street would be classified under this proposal on the Master
Street Plan as a commercial streets. Dedicate right-of-way to
30 feet from centerline.
2. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at Whitfield and West 40th and
Whitfield and Asher.
3. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-
half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development. Where Whitfield has not been constructed, pave to 2-lane width of
22'.
4. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade permit
prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic Engineering at 501-379-
1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more information.
5. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Easements for proposed
stormwater detention facilities are required.
6. Property depth is not great enough to have two driveways and meet driveway
spacing requirement.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Existing sewer main located on the site. Contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility for additional details at 376-2903.
AP & L: No comment received.
ARKLA: No comment received.
Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted.
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding water service to this
development. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to
determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be
required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the
Developer's expense. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for
additional details.
3
October 31, 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F Cont. FILE NO.: S-1352
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
Counh Plannin - No-cemment received.
CATA: Site is located on bus route #14 and has not effect on bus radius, turnout
and route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 29, 2002)
Mr. Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present
representing the application. Staff presented the item and stated they needed
guidance from the Committee. Staff stated the applicant was currently under
enforcement for clearing a site without a land alteration permit. Staff stated the
ordinance requires the applicant to submit a development plan but does not
outline what a development plan is to contain. Staff stated the ordinance
indicates two ways of appeal; one a grading permit and the second an appeal of
the grading permit being denied.
Staff stated the applicant had filed three applications. One was for a preliminary
plat to subdivide the site into two lots and the other two consisted of a site plan
review for Lot 1 a commercially zoned site, and a site plan review for Lot 2, a
multi -family zoned site. Staff questioned if the two site plan reviews were
necessary.
After a discussion, the Committee determined the proposed plat did meet the
intent of a development plan and the other two applications were not required
unless the applicant did have intentions of developing the site, as submitted. Mr.
McGetrick stated he would contact the owner and see if he wanted to proceed
with the site plan review applications.
Staff stated the additional information required for each item had been provided.
Staff stated if there were any questions, to please contact staff for specific
guidance.
There being no further issues to discuss, the Committee then forwarded the item
to the full Commission for final action.
C!
October 31, 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont
H. ANALYSIS:
Preliminary Plat:
FILE NO.: S-1352
The applicant submitted a revised plat to staff addressing most of the issues
raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has indicated the
proposed source of the water supplier, the means of wastewater disposal and the
names of recorded subdivisions abutting the plat.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat. The proposed preliminary
plat conforms to the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The
platting along the zoning lines make logical sense for a future development
pattern for the site. Otherwise, to Staffs knowledge there are no outstanding
issues associated with the proposed preliminary plat. The proposed plat should
have no adverse impact on the area, if platted as proposed.
Land Alteration Restoration Plan:
JCI submitted plans for an apartment complex on the northern half of the
property and an unidentified commercial development on the southern half. At
the subdivision subcommittee meeting, the applicant's engineer advised that
construction of neither project would likely be forthcoming. He was advised to
submit a restoration plan instead.
The submitted restoration plan shows bermuda grass sowed over the entire site
with 43 water oak trees (2-2.5 in caliper, 10-12 ft tall) planted around the exterior
of the property. The plan also shows that 4 feet of fill will remain along the
southeastern part of the site.
Public Works has consistently taken the position that the site should be restored
as required by the ordinance.
The issue before the Planning Commission is whether JCI's plan(s) should be
approved and a grading permit issued.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
Staff recommends denial of the restoration plan.
G�
October 31, 2002
SUBDIVISION
M NO.: F (Cont.
FILE NO.: 5-1352
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 2002)
Mr. Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present representing the
applicant. The applicant was also present. There were numerous objectors present.
Staff introduced the item and stated there were several issues before the Commission.
Staff stated a preliminary plat had been filed as a restoration plan. Staff questioned if
the plat would suffice as a restoration plan. Another issue was should JCI be issued a
grading permit based on the preliminary plat and the two (2) site plans submitted, which
the applicant had not intentions of constructing. Staff stated they felt the restoration
plan should include landscaping.
Commissioner Faust stated the subdivision Committee members had reviewed the
issues and felt that a restoration plan was more in order than an inventive development
plan.
Dottie Funk spoke in opposition of the development. She stated the land alteration task
force was appointed four (4) years ago and two (2) years ago the ordinances were put
in place. Ms. Funk stated her request Was for the Commission to honor the ordinances.
She stated as far as the litigation, since the site was cleared, instead of punishment a
compromise would be more trees or more landscaping on the site. She stated the
applicant should give 50% more than was required by the ordinance.
Ms. Carolyn Hitman spoke in opposition of the proposals. She stated she was the
secretary of the John Barrow Neighborhood Association and the Association had met
with the developer. She stated the clearing of the site had resulted in the loss of a bird
sanctuary and a buffer. She stated a majority of the trees were located on the south
side of the property near the Borden Dairy property. She stated the neighborhood
would like the application deferred until the developer could work with the neighborhood
to develop a restoration plan.
Mr. Troy Laha spoke in opposition of the development. He stated he would like to see
the site restored as required by the ordinance.
Mr. Pat McGetrick spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated the restoration plan
would include leveling the site, adding 2 inches of top soil and place 45 to 50 trees of
2 inch caliper or greater on the site. He stated the applicant would work with the
neighborhood and staff with regard to placement on the site of the trees.
Commissioner Rector questioned what the ordinance required.
Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated the restoration was to be
made as practicable as possible. He stated staff did not recommend approval of the
invented development plans.
M.
October 31, 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.
FILE NO.: S-1352
Commissioner Allen questioned 50 trees. He stated if the 50 trees were not enough
then what.
Mr. Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission was to determine what
was enough.
Mr. Lawson stated at some point in the future the site would develop. He stated it was
important to not place the trees in areas, which would once again be removed.
Commissioner Faust asked if anyone knew how many trees were on the site prior to the
removal. Mr. McGetrick stated the exact number of trees was unknown.
Commissioner Faust stated the application before the Commission was not a
restoration plan. She stated the applicant should bring back a true restoration plan and
not a plat for the site, which was not reflective of the restoration plan.
There was a lengthy discussion concerning the restoration plan and what the plan
should include and the punishment the applicant should received for the violation of the
ordinance.
Mr. Lawson stated the Planning Commission should see a plan on paper prior to a vote.
Commissioner Lowery stated he strongly encouraged the applicant to work with the City
Beautiful Commission and seek their participation.
There was a motion to withdraw the building site plans and the plat and submit a
restoration plan in their place. The restoration plan would be heard at the October 31,
2002 Public Hearing.
The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 31, 2002)
Mr. Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick was present representing the
application. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a restoration plan, which was
agreeable to the neighborhood and to Staff. Staff stated the applicant had agreed to
install 3 to 4 inch caliper trees ranging from 15 to 18 feet tall. Staff stated the trees
would be placed in areas that were less likely to be disturbed when the site develops in
the future. Staff stated presented a positive recommendation of the proposed
restoration plan.
There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and
approved as presented by Staff by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no and 2 absent.
7