Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0203-B Staff Analysiss February 23, 1988 Item No. A - Z-4103-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: University Properties, Inc., and Bill Lusk John L. Burnett Broadmoor North Phase II (Northmoor, Charlotte and Garfield Drives) Rezone from "R-2" and "0-2" to "0-3" Office 12.95 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Church, Office, and Commercial, Zoned "R-2, "R-5," and "0-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Church and Commercial, Zoned "R-2" and "C-3" West -- Single Family, Zoned "R-2" and "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone 10.5 acres (12.9.acres including the street right-of-way) in the Broadmoor North Subdivision from "R-2" and "0-2" to "0-3" for some type of office park development. No specific plans have been submitted, so it is unknown how the lots will be developed and/or marketed. Broadmoor North is located to the southwest of the intersection of West 12th and University Avenue. There are a total of 45 lots included in this request, and none of them have any direct relationship to either West 12th or University Avenue which is critical to an office area this size. Without access to a major street and having to utilize residential streets for traffic circulation, the proposed "0-3" rezoning is questionable. Also without the high visibility gained from having some frontage on a major street, the potential for this type of land use to work is marginal at best. Another factor that must be carefully considered when reviewing this request is the desirability of allowing a nonresidential rezoning to encroach into an established single family neighborhood. When selecting LA February 23, 1988 7, Item No. A - Continued a viable office site, there are some basic criteria that should be considered, and that does not appear to be the case with this request. 2. There are 45 lots and two streets, Garfield and Charlotte Drives, involved with this request. All the lots are vacant, and the site is relatively flat. The lots under consideration have frontage on either Garfield or Charlotte. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. As of this writing, there have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies. It 5. There is an apparent legal issue allied with this rezoning and that is the Bill of Assurance for Broadmoor North. The Bill of Assurance.restricts the land use to detached single family residences so it appears that the Bill of Assurance will have to be amended at some point, if the rezoning is granted. To amend the Bill of Assurance, it takes 70 pe-rcent of the property owners. Also, the Bill of Assurance requires _ that the grantor's, Winrock Development Company, 01 approval must first be obtained before any amendment can be made as long as the grantor owns any lots or land in the subdivision. It is the staff's understanding that Winrock still owns several lots within the subdivision. 6. Originally, the area under consideration was part of the University Park Urban Renewal Plan which was in effect from 1964 to 1984 and expired in June 1984. The Urban Renewal Plan also restricted use of the land to detached single family units. The lots are now a part of the Broadmoor North Subdivision which was approved in the late 19701s. In October 1983, a rezoning request from "R-2" and "C-3" to "MF-12," "0-2," and "0-3" was filed for basically the same tract of land. The first application included approximately 12 acres and properties that have frontage on both West 12th and University Avenue. The issue was deferred several times, and the request which had been amended to "0-2" for all the lots was finally heard by the Planning Commission in May and June of 1984. At each of the hearings, there were objectors from the area who expressed concerns with traffic, property values, and impacts on the residential neighborhood. After much N debate a modified proposal was approved for 5.2 acres J of "0-2," the existing zoning pattern. Winrock February 23,, 1988 ;^ Item No. A - Continued Development Company was opposed to the 1984 rezoning request. 7. Staff's position is that the proposed "0-3" reclassification is inappropriate for the location and does not support the request. Some of the major issues have been presented in other sections, but there are a number of other concerns. - The appropriateness of filing an application for nonresidential zoning on land that is restricted to detached single family use. - The request does not conform to the adopted Boyle Park Plan which shows single family residential for the lots. - The possible encroachment of nonresidential uses into a viable single family neighborhood. The request appears to be speculative in nature. - Access is totally inadequate for the proposed rezoning, and the use of residential streets is undesirable. The proposal is contrary to good land use and planning because of various factors, and the "0-3" reclassification could have a very adverse impact on the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "0-3" rezoning as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-1-87) The applicant was represented by -Pete Hornibrook. There was one objector in attendance. Staff reported to the Commission that the applicant submitted a written request for deferral, but it was received after the five working days as required by the Planning Commission Bylaws. There was some discussion about the request and the objector said that he was not opposed to deferring the rezoning. A motion was made to defer the request to the January 12, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. I February 23, 1988 Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-12-88) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a written request for a deferral. A motion was made motiondefer as athe item to the February 23, 1988, meeting. The ved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-23-88) The applicant, John Burnett, was present. There were no objectors. Gary Greeson, Planning Director, addressed the Commission and said that "0-2" would be more desirable for the "R-2" property north of the existing 110-2" and that the lots to the south should remain "R-2." Mr. Burnett then discussed the rezoning proposal on the property. He told the Commission that one reason for not wanting an 110-2" reclassification was the various utility easements and the inability to construct over them. Mr. Burnett said that 110-3" was more suitable for the proposed type of development and suggested that some type of condition restricting lot size could be made a part of the rezoning approval. The proposed condition would require the acreage in question to be replatted into 14,000 square foot lots the minimum site area for the 110-3" District. Mr. Burnett then went on to say that he had met with the one objector who attended the AKN first public hearing and the resident indicated that the neighborhood was no longer concerned with an "0-3" development but rather with small housing units. There was some discussion about the traffic concerns, and Mr. Burnett said that he would be willing to cul-de-sac Garfield Drive f the at the end of the proposed office lots. Mike Batie o Engineering staff said that a cul-de-sac was a reasonable solution to the problem, Mr. Burnett told the Commission that the area was a viable location for a small garden office park and there was a demand for one level office buildings in Little Rock. Additional comments were made about the differences in the "0-2" and 110-3" Districts including the permitted heights in the two zoning classifications. Stephens Giles of the City Attorney's Office said that requiring 14,000 square foot lots was a reasonable condition to attach to the rezoning approval. There was some discussion about the final plat and other issues. A motion was then offered which recommended approval of the 110-3" rezoning with the condition that a preliminary plat be filed with 14,000 square foot lots as the minimum lot size and then a final plat be filed for the area along the southern portion of. Garfield Drive with a cul-de-sac terminating Garfield Drive at the end of the office development. The motion passed by a vote of 10 aves, 1 no, and 0 absent. March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 27 FILE NO.: S-203-B NAME: UNIVERSITY OFFICE PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT -- RECERTIFICATION LOCATION: South of Northmoor Drive, along Charlotte and Garfield Drives DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: UNIVERSITY PARTNERS WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. c/o Rector -Phillips -Morse 401 S. Victory St. 1501 N. University Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72207 374-1666 664-7807 AREA: 12.96 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 26 FT. NEW STREET: 50 ZONING: O-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 CENSUS TRACT: 21.02 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Offices The applicant proposes the recertification of a preliminary plat which was approved on July 12, 1988. The area under consideration was a developed and platted residential subdivision, but was re -zoned to 0-3. One of the requirements of the re -zoning was for construction of a cul7de-sac at the south end of Garfield Dr. at the south limits of the re -zoned area. The development of the area for office uses has never begun, and the cul-de-sac was never built. Another request on the current agenda is for a conditional use involving an area within this subdivision. Since the approval of the preliminary plat has expired, but the requirements of the re -zoning are still binding, the applicant requests recertification of the plat. The construction of the cul-de-sac will be undertaken. A. PROPOSALZREQUEST: Recertification of a previously approved preliminary plat is requested. The Commission approved the preliminary plat on July 12, 1988. The action was in response to a re -zoning of the tract for office use, and entailed a requirement to construct a cul-de-sac at the south end of Garfield Dr. The streets had been previously constructed to residential standards in a residentially zoned district. With the re -zoning, a requirement was imposed that the cul-de-sac be constructed to isolate the business from the residential areas. The applicant has now begun development of the March 22, 1994 ITEM NO_: 27 Continued FILE ND.: S-203-B business uses in the area and the preliminary plat approval has expired. Since the requirements of the re -zoning, which were the basis for the requirement for the installation of the cul-de-sac, are still binding, the Commission is requested to recertify the plat and allow the development to commence. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The area of the preliminary plat has residential streets in place which were constructed years ago. The property is cleared and the terrain is level. No development of structures within the boundary of the plat has taken place. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering points out that an additional cul-de-sac is required by the Ordinance to be constructed on Garfield Dr. as a termination of Garfield Dr. from the south. when the cul-de-sac is constructed for the termination from the north, traffic from the south will face a dead-end. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: In the re -zoning and subsequent preliminary plat approval, requirements were imposed on the development which required the construction of the one cul-de-sac on Garfield Dr. from the north. The requirements were imposed and the plat layout was approved at that time. The name "University Office Park" has already been taken; the name of the proposed subdivision must be changed. E. ANALYSIS: Because of the imposition of the requirements for the cul-de-sac by the Board of Directors in the re -zoning of the property, the Planning staff recommends that the requirements not be changed, and that the issue of the need of an additional cul-de-sac on Garfield Dr. from the south not be addressed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the requested recertification. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Mr. Joe White, representing the engineering firm, was present. Staff indicated the nature of the request and the concerns of staff. The Engineering staff pointed out the need for the 2 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 27 Continued FILE O.: -2 3-B additional cul-de-sac on Garfield Dr. from the south. Mr. White responded that when the original approval was granted, the Fire Department had not seen a need for a cul-de-sac, since the remaining stub street from the south is so short. Staff also pointed out the need to select an alternate name for the subdivision. The Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for final resolution on the matter. PL ING COMMISSION A TTON: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff recommended that issues dealt with in 1988 at the time the original zoning was approved by the Board of Directors and the preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission not be re -visited at this time, but that the preliminary plat as originally approved be re -certified as requested. The request was included in the Consent Agenda, and the preliminary plat was re -certified with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention. 3 1. M.eet._i.ng. Date: August 16, 1988 2. Name: University Office Park 3. Re.que.s.t: To plat 17.96 acres into 26 lots 4. Loc_at.i_on: South of Northmoor Drive, along Charlotte and Garfield Drives 5. Owner/Applicant: University Partners-RPM/White-Daters .. and Associates 6. Existing Status: "R-2" to "0-3" 7. Proposed_Use : Office park 8. Staff Recommendation: Denial of the Subdivision and the waivers due to substandard street widths, and drainage. Streets and drainage improvements are built to residential standards, so they are inadequate for more intensive uses. 9. Planni.ng Commission R_ecomme_nd__ation: Approval of the plat and waivers. The voter 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent. Item No. G NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: University Partners c/o Rector -Phillips - Morse 1501 N. University Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: 664-7807 University Office Park South of Northmoor Drive, along Charlotte and Garfield Drives ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates, Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 12.96 acres NO. OF LOTS: 26 ZONING: 910-3" PROPOSED USE: Office Park A. P,roposa I./Request FT. NEW ST.: 1. To plat 12.96 acres into 26 lots for general office use. B. Ex J. s t i n g...._CO.n_d. i .t i P.n.s ............................ This site is located just north of the Broadmoor South Subdivision. C. I ssues[D i scuss i_o_n.LLega I LTechn ic_a. 1./Des ig,n 1. Give notice to all abutting property owners. 2. Identify points and lines to be moved. 3. Provide 40' buffer and 6' opaque fence adjacent to residential areas. 4. Submit phasing scheme. 5. Staff is concerned with the location of office buildings which will be facing existing houses. Developers should present ideas for lessening the impact. Item.No. G (Continued} 6. Staff suggests fewer lots to help alleviate problems with drainage system. During rezoning, developer promised 20 lots. 7. Revised cul-de-sac to be less than 750 feet. 8. Twenty-five foot building lines required. 9. All widening of streets to be completed with sale of first lot. D. Engineer-i.ng Comments 1. Upgrade drainage system since it is currently designed for residential property. It must be designed to handle the commercial office uses. 2. Thirty-six foot/60 foot wide commercial streets required. E. Staff Recommendation Reserved until comments addressed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The comments were discussed. Some major problems were identified, such as protection for the existing residential uses and the drainage system, which is currently designed for residential use. It was indicated that Lots 23-26, Lot 22 and Lots 26 and 27 abut existing residential uses. The applicant agreed to look into such devices as a berm to soften the impact of the proposed uses, and to work with Engineering to devise acceptable plans for storm drainage. Other issues discussed included the inability of the Commission to grant waivers at this point. The cul-de-sac is in excess of 750' and the street should be built to commercial standards. Staff agreed to research whether Board action on rezoning could exempt the cul-de-sac. Item No. G Cont►nued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) It was decided that this item should be deferred unt-il further information regarding the granting of variances was received from the City Attorney. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. ...... .... _ PLANNING COMMISSIONACTION : (July I y 1 2 , 1 988 ) __-________ .. Mr. John Burnett, Developer, and Mr. Joe White, Engineer, represented the proposal. Staff recommended denial of the requested waivers and the Subdivision. Staff stated opposition to a proposed development with sub -standard streets and drainage. Mr. Burnett accused Staff of "subterfuge" in regards to this proposal. Since Staff did not originally support his proposal for rezoning, and the item was subsequently passed by the Commission, he felt that Staff was trying to defeat him in another way by recommending that he comply with the usual standards for office/commercial plats. Commissioner Massie explained that in an undeveloped area of the City, the Commission would not usually support residential streets and drainage for a commercial developer. He felt, however, that the Commission previously endorsed the waivers by requesting, at the time of rezoning, that the Applicant file a Subdivision plat. A motion was made and passed for approval of the plat and waiver. The motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent. REASONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 1. A replat of lots in the Section was required as a condition of rezoning the property to 110-3." 2. The cul-de-sac was also required as part of the rezoning. Item No. G Continued 3. Since this is an existing platted area with completed streets, widening of the streets should not be required. 4. Widening of the streets was not contemplated at the time of rezoning the property. F H July 12, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. G NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: University Partners c/o Rector-Phil'lips- Morse 1501 N. University Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: 664-7807 University Office Park South of Northmoor Drive, along Charlotte and Garfield Drives White-Daters and Associates, Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 12.96 acres NO..OF LOTS: 26 ZONING: 110-3" PROPOSED USE: Office Park A. Proposal„/Request FT. NEW ST.: 1. To plat 12.96 acres into 26 lots for general office use. B. Exist i_ng Con_di t.ions This site is located just north of the Broadmoor South Subdivision. C. Issues Discussion Legal/Technical/Deq-i_,gn 1. Give notice to all abutting property owners. 2. Identify points and lines to be moved. 3. Provide 40, buffer and 6' opaque fence adjacent to residential areas. 4. Submit phasing scheme. 5. Staff is concerned with the location of office buildings which will be facing existing houses. Developers should present ideas for lessening the impact. July 12, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. G (Continued) 6. Staff suggests fewer lots to help alleviate problems with drainage system. During rezoning, developer promised 20 lots. 7. Revised cul-de-sac to be less than 750 feet. 8. Twenty-five foot building lines required. 9. All widening of streets to be completed with sale of first lot. D. E n g i_neer_i n_g WComments 1. Upgrade drainage system since it is currently designed for residential property. It must be designed to handle the commercial office uses. 2. Thirty-six foot/60 foot wide commercial streets required. E. Staff Recommendation Reserved until comments addressed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The comments were discussed. Some major problems were identified, such as protection for the existing residential uses and the drainage system, which is currently designed for residential use. It was indicated that'Lots 23-26, Lot 22 and Lots 26 and 27 abut existing residential uses. The applicant agreed to look into such devices as a berm to soften the impact of the proposed uses, and to work with Engineering to devise acceptable plans for storm drainage. Other issues discussed included the inability of the Commission to grant waivers at this point. The cul-de-sac is in excess of 750' and the street should be built to commercial standards. Staff agreed to research whether Board action on rezoning could exempt the cul-de-sac. 10 July 12, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. G (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) It was decided that this item should be deferred until further information regarding the granting of variances was received from the City Attorney. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 12, 1988) Mr. John Burnett, Developer, and Mr. Joe White, Engineer, represented the proposal. Staff recommended denial of the requested waivers and the Subdivision. Staff stated opposition to a proposed development with sub -standard streets and drainage. Mr. Burnett accused Staff of "subterfuge" in regards to this proposal. Since Staff did not originally support his proposal for rezoning, and the item was subsequently passed by the Commission, he felt that Staff was trying to defeat him in another way by recommending that he comply with the usual standards for office/commercial plats. Commissioner Massie explained that in an undeveloped area of the City, the Commission would not usually support residential streets and drainage for a commercial developer. He felt, however, that the Commission previously endorsed the waivers by requesting, at the time of rezoning, that the Applicant file a Subdivision plat. A motion was made and passed for approval of the plat and waiver, The motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent. REASONS FOR PLANNING.C�MMISSION ACTION: 1. A replat of lots in the Section was required as a condition of rezoning the property to "0-3." 2. The cul-de-sac was also required as part of the rezoning. July 12, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. G jContinu,ed) 3. Since this is an existing platted area with completed streets, widening of the streets should not be required.' 4. Widening of the streets was not contemplated at the time of rezoning the property. May 31, 19BB SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 NAME: University Office Park LOCATION: South of Northmoor Drive, along Charlotte and Garfield Drives n'DT711T nT3 D . University Partners c/o Rector -Phillips - Morse 1501 N. University Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: 664-7807 AREA: 12.96 acres ZONING: 110-3" White-Daters and Associates, Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 NO. OF LOTS: 26 FT. NEW ST.: PROPOSED USE: Office Park A. Proposal/Request le To plat 12.96 acres into 26 lots for general office use. B. Existing Conditions This site is located just north of the Broadmoor South Subdivision. C. Issues/Discussion/Legal/Technical/Design 1. Give notice to all abutting property owners. 2. Identify points and lines to be moved. 3. Provide 40' buffer and 6' opaque fence adjacent to residential areas. c May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued 4. Submit phasing scheme. 5o Staff is concerned with the location of office buildings which will be facing existing houses. Developers should present ideas for lessening the impact. 6. Staff suggests fewer lots to help alleviate problems with drainage system. During rezoning, developer promised 20 lots. 7. Revised cul-de-sac to be less than 750'. 8. Twenty -five-foot building lines required. 9. All widening of streets to be completed with sale of first lot. D. Engineerinq Comments 1. Upgrade drainage system since it is currently r- designed for residential property. It must be t designed to handle the commercial office uses. 2. Thirty-six-foot/60-foot wide commercial streets required. E. Staff Recommendation Reserved until comments addressed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The comments were discussed. Some major problems were identified, such as protection for the existing residential uses and the drainage system, which is currently designed for residential use. It was indicated that Lots 23-26, Lot 22 and Lots 26 and 27 abut existing residential uses. The applicant agreed to look into such devices as a berm to soften the impact of the proposed uses, and to work with Engineering to devise acceptable plans for storm drainage. -May 31, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued Other issues discussed included the inability of the Commission to grant waivers at this point. The cul-de-sac is in excess of 750' and the street should be built to commercial standards. Staff agreed to research whether Board action on rezoning could exempt the cul-de-sac. May 31, 1988 Item No. 5 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 31, 1988) It was decided that this item should be deferred until further information regarding the granting of variances was received from the City Attorney. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.