Z-5583 Staff Analysis1. Meeting Date: December 1, 1992
2. Case No.: Z-5583
3. Request: To approve the establishment of a POD District
titled Hermitage Road Mini -Warehouse.
4. Location: 11,701 Hermitage Road
5. Owner/Applicant: Lewis Realty and Associates, Agenz
6. Existing Status: Vacant land and undisturbed
7. Proposed Use: The construction of mixed use complex
composed of mini -warehouse, office warehouse and office use.
8. Staff Recommendation: Denial of the application as being
inconsistent with the neighborhood plan.
9. Planning commission Recommendation: Approval of the
application as modified by the applicant.
10. Conditions or Issues Remaining to be Resolved: None
11. Right -of -Way Issues: None
12. Recommendation Forwarded With: A vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent and 0 abstention.
13. Objectors: None
14. Neighborhood Plan: Interstate 430 (11)
FILE NO.: Z-5583
NAME: Hermitage Road - Long -Form - Planned Office Development
LOCATION: 11701 Hermitage
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
EUGENE L. LEWIS WHITE-DATERS AND ASSOCIATES
Lewis Realty and Associates 401 Victory Street
P. O. Box 7683 Little Rock, AR 72201
Little Rock, AR 72217 374-1666
376-4455
AREA: 5.27± acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: Multifamily PROPOSED USES: Office, Office Warehouse
and Mini -Warehouses
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
Burlingame Valley 21
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
None
This proposal is for the development of office, office warehouse
and mini -warehouses on 5.27 acres± which will contain 15,480
square feet of office and office warehouse, including an on-site
manager's office and apartment containing approximately 1,400
square feet. The balance of the project is self -storage units
(mini -warehouses) containing 64,650 square feet.
A. PROPOSAL RE VEST:
It is the developer's plan to lease the office styled
structures either as pure office or as office warehouse.
Typical users may include service companies (HVAC), elevators,
etc.) food, printing, copier and telecommunication brokers and
many others too numerous to mention that have a storage need
incidental to their office function such as medical supply
companies.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This tract of land is rolling terrain falling to the south
surrounded by a mixture of both residential and nonconforming
activity.
1
FILA NO.: Z-5583 Cont.
C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS:
1. Provide collector street improvements with sidewalks on
Hermitage Road.
2. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinance apply.
Little Rock Waste Water Utility
Sewer mains located on property and easements are required
with any platting or replatting of property.
Little Rock Munici al Water Works
1. On-site fire protection will be required.
2. Existing main is six (6) inches; therefore, an extension
from the twelve (12) inch main in Bowman Road will be
required.
D. ISSUESILEGALITECHNICAL/D_ESIGN:
1. Overbuilding of the site.
2. Not enough buffers being provided.
3. Building design will be fire resistance construction
utilizing masonry exterior materials, steel structure and
standing -seam roofs; therefore industrial in appearance.
4. Number of units not provided.
5. The use is not permitted by the land use plan for this
area.
6. A lighting scheme for the building and driveway area was
not provided.
7. A description and plan to protect trees is required for
buffer areas during construction.
8. A nonreflecting material should be used for roofing that
,will not adversely affect the adjacent residential
neighborhood.
E. ANALYSIS•
The Planning staff view of this proposal is that the design is
inadequate for the property. The commercial/industrial
character is overbuilt for the site and impose upon
neighborhood. This proposal is located inappropriately for
such a large scale development. The land use plan shows this
site as multifamily for 12 to 18 units per acre.
Approximately one month ago, the Planning staff did a mailout
requesting owners to comment on rezoning of this lot and
FILE NO.: Z-5583 dont.
others. This mailing was associated with the Bowman Road at
Chenal Plan Amendment. The property owner was asked to
respond within a certain period of time; however, no response
was received.
Staff suggested that it could possibly support the request if
the POD and the size of the development was scaled down. A
considerable amount of the mature vegetation in a perimeter,
50 feet ± could provide buffer to the residential uses. As of
this writing, the applicant has not responded.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the Planned office Development as
filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 3, 1992)
Eugene Lewis represented the application. There was a brief
discussion about staff's comments. This item was forwarded to the
full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(SEPTEMBER 22, 1992)
Mr. Gene Lewis was present and represented the application. There
were no objectors in attendance. The Chairman asked staff to make
its recommendation. Richard Wood of staff reported that the
recommendation remains denial of the application due to what they
perceive to be an overbuilding of the site, combined with
nonconformity with the adopted land use plan for this area and the
terrain. Wood expanded the staff recommendation to remind the
Commission that this area was recently reviewed by the Commission
for purposes of expanding the commercial office area around Bowman
Road and Chenal Parkway, and the adding of substantial new
commercial property. The staff's opinion is that nothing has
changed in any manner which would support a modification of the
land use plan on this short timeframe.
Mr. Lewis came forward with a presentation involving photographs
and materials supporting his application. He offered a
photographic history and current status on the Riverdale
mini -warehouse complex which is what he feels to be a project very
close in nature and design to the one proposed on Hermitage Road.
Mr. Lewis pointed out one of the major features of the Riverdale
Plan and the plan proposed for Hermitage is a compound design
whereby a solid wall is presented to the boundary properties to the
side and rear, with an office elevation presented to the street in
front.
Mr. Lewis offered comments concerning the density and traffic
generation factors from this project versus those generated by
multifamily. He indicated that these factors would be considerably
smaller. He offered comments on the inappropriateness of a plan
FILE NO.: Z-5583 Cont.
with a definite line between various uses. He suggested there are
already commercial uses between this property and the parkway. The
Chairman then asked Mr. Lewis if he had a response to the staff's
position in the agenda whereby it was suggested that a scaled down
project might be better received by staff.
Mr. Lewis responded by saying he felt the compound approach would
be solid barrier walls on the perimeter had much the same effect as
a large buffer around the perimeter of the site. Mr. Lewis and the
Commission then entered into a conversation concerning whether or
not a phasing approach would allow an easing onto the site of this
use in such a manner to allow lesser impact. Commissioner Putnam
then posed a question about the PUD approach and the overbuilding
aspect as it relates to doing an architectural or site plan control
review. Jim Lawson stated that this is the issue which is before
the Commission dealing with specific design of the site. However,
it was not the staff's responsibility to design this project and
its various physical elements.
Richard Wood followed this comment by saying when a project is
overbuilt, we are looking at the density allowed for the approved
plan, the terrain of the project and its access. In other words,
the total picture and not just the numbers of units and number of
buildings. Jim Lawson then commented on the question of whether or
not phasing would reduce the impact identified by staff. He stated
that he felt like the project of this magnitude should not be
built.
Mr. Lewis returned to his presentation of the photographs of the
Riverdale project and pointed out the material, landscaping and the
significant ground covers. Commissioner Walker then offered a
comment to the effect that he recalls that the plan shown at the
Subdivision Committee did not reflect the kind of landscaping and
treatment in front as that which is represented by Mr. Lewis'
presentation. Mr. Walker added a comment that he thought the
compound approach was an excellent approach for this type of land
use; however, he had some reservation about its placement on this
site. However, he modified this comment by saying he was not sure
how critical that was if the street frontage of the property is
well done.
Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Lewis if he had discussed this with
Bob Brown in the Landscape Office, the treatment of the front of
this property. Especially as to whether or not he is able to meet
the requirement of ordinance, Mr. Lewis stated that he discussed
the plan with Bob Brown. Mr. Brown had offered several comments
about movements of buildings and such. Mr. Lewis indicated that he
was about 2,800 feet short of the ordinance requirement in one
area, but he picked up 4,300 feet in another area. Mr. Walker
commented that he would be surprised if he visited the site and
found that its appearance to be as that represented by Mr. Lewis'
photographs. Mr. Lewis pointed out that these photographs, of
course, represent mature landscaping which has been in place for a
number of years.
4
J
FILE NO.: Z-5583 (Cont
Commissioner Walker then asked Mr. Lewis if he was changing his
design to accommodate the circumstance of this application. Mr.
Lewis responded by saying that he felt the land use issue was the
more critical at this point and he felt like he would then be
coming back to deal with other specific issues. It was pointed to
Mr. Lewis that the procedure normally does not involve simply
approving the land use on the PUD, and then returning at some later
date to deal with specifics. (The PUD process being a total
package for review.) Commissioner Walker indicated that as far as
he was concerned the treatment on the Hermitage frontage was a key
to whether or not he supported the application. He also indicated
that he was one who believed that you could do almost anything
anywhere if it is done properly. He said that he would be
encouraged to support the application if the landscaping and
buffering along the front is accomplished properly.
Chairman McDaniel then stated he felt that there were some
commissioners who would like Mr. Lewis to move to his copy of the
agenda under Item D and specifically respond to the eight items
which had been provided by staff and their commentary. Mr. Lewis
then attempted to respond to the several issues in the Staff
Analysis. His general response was one that he felt like he and
developer could not comply with the type of standards the staff had
discussed.
The discussion then moved to a question raised by Commissioner
Putnam as to how many buildings are in the complex and of what
nature. Mr. Lewis pointed out that there were two office warehouse
buildings in the front of the project which had substantial office
involvement. The balance of the structures on the property would
be conventional mini -warehouse buildings, with five structures in
the core and three perimeter buildings. In response to another
commissioner, Mr. Lewis stated there would be approximately 500
rental spaces within the complex. He went on to point out that the
lighting system would be wall mounted and down directed, the front
buildings containing the offices would have flood lights which
would be directed to the face of the building. His response to the
ordinance requirement for him to provide a plan for saving trees on
the site in the buffer areas was that they would rather not try to
save existing trees, but to plant new ones. Mr. Lewis stated the
roof system would be nonreflective. They proposed a standup
galvanized metal roof which comes in many colors. He followed that
comment by stating that all of the roofs would face inward and
would not be visible to surrounding areas.
Commissioner Willis then posed a question to staff about the
downsizing discussed earlier and what it would mean; two or three
buildings? Staff again responded by stating they were not talking
about specific numbers or buildings, but the total conflicts
involved. A brief discussion then led staff to comment that our
recommendation and our feeling about these types of project is one
that says you should determine the appropriateness of the use
before you design the project, and at this point, staff was not
trying to design the project. Wood stated that if you start
5
FILE NO.: Z-5583 (Cont.)
designing the project to the extent you feel comfortable with it,
then you are getting away from the land use plan and its original
intent, which is decide the use first.
Commissioner Walker then posed a question by asking if that is the
case then why do we have PUD's and POD's and PCD's so that we can
design to the specific location. He stated that if the applicant
could meet the buffer and setback requirements and given the kind
of design, this project offers, which is considerably more than the
conventional mini -warehouse, given the solid walls and the office
warehouse front. A lengthy discussion then ensued involving
several staff and commmissioners on the appropriateness of the
types of density represented in this application.
Commissioner Putnam then offered comments concerning the designs of
various mini -warehouse complexes in the city. Some appropriate and
some not and some well-designed, others are poorly designed. It
was his feeling that he could not see a detriment to the land use
in this area from the placement of a well-designed mini -warehouse
on this street.
Chairman McDaniel then pointed out to Mr. Lewis that given the
kinds of issues raised by staff in their analysis, and the
differences that are apparent from the discussion in this meeting,
he might not get the support for his project in today's meeting.
The Chairman told Mr. Lewis that he would happy be to have him come
back to speak shortly, but he had another person which desired to
make comments on this issue.
Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters, offered
comments on the application with specific emphasis on the past four
months. Ms. Bell stated that during this time the City Planning
Commission and the Board went through an exercise to change the
land use plan in this area and increase the amount of commercial
and office on properties north and west of here. She expressed
that nothing she had heard today convinces her that the
circumstance has changed in this short time. Since the plan was
changed to accommodate all of this commercial which would support
an additional development, she requested the Commission reject this
application on this basis.
Chairman McDaniel then offered a statement that he felt it would be
very good if we could simply draw plans and put lines in place that
would stay forever. However, we cannot choose who owns properties
or the market desires in a given area. He reminded everyone that
at best, a plan is general in nature. Ms. Bell responded by saying
she did not like seeing a plan "pecked to death". She expressed a
thought that she did not like seeing a plan not given sufficient
time to see if it is going to work. She stated with the Commission
meeting every two weeks that perhaps they are not aware that they
do, in fact, "nibble away" at plans an incremental basis.
The Chairman then asked Mr. Lewis
Mr. Lewis stated that the POD plan
review. He did not simply want to
0
to make his closing comments.
which was filed was offered for
come in for a commercial zoning.
FILE NO.: Z-5583 Cont. .
He agreed with Commissioner Walker's comment that the front door
image of the project and driveby relationship was the more critical
issue. He stated that he certainly did not mind pulling out one
building, thereby moving the total project back from the roadway up
to 40 feet and providing additional landscaping at the front door
of the project. Mr. Lewis stated that although the staff pointed
out a 50 foot grade change across the property from north to south.
He would probably develop the project with a total of 25 feet of
grade change because of an old pond on the south end giving false
impression. He felt providing the additional grass area and side
buffer was critical. He stated that he did not mind refiling and
coming back to the Commission if it would help the staff and the
Commission to give him an affirmative vote.
Chairman McDaniel pointed out that he did not disagree with the
concept; however, with this many differences between staff and the
applicant, he felt like he could not support the application at
this meeting. The Chairman stated that if Mr. Lewis would come
back after meeting with the staff and try to resolve these
differences, he could perhaps support the request. The Chairman
stated for the record that if the Commission voted on this
application and if it were denied, the applicant could not refile
this same request within a year. The staff clarified that saying
it could be refiled as a PUD with a more restrictive nature as long
as it is substantially different from this application. Mr. Lewis
suggested that he would be willing to work with the staff toward
this end.
Commissioner Oleson then commented that, that may be what Mr. Lewis
wants to do; however, land use is the primary issue. Commissioner
Oleson felt it should be understood that just because Mr. Lewis
leaves the meeting today and spends two weeks perhaps talking with
staff, this does not mean that the application will be approved.
Richard Wood then inserted a thought he felt would clarify the
staff's position a little more on this subject. Wood stated, "Many
times because the staff has a lot of conditions or apparent
suggestions for resolution of an application's problems that those
are only things required to be solved in order to gain support for
approval. staff's position is one of first stating denial or
approval in a recommendation, and then commenting on the specifics
of the item before the Commission."
Wood stated that he felt staff would be remiss in their
responsibilities if they simply said recommend approval or denial
without going into the issues attendant to the case. In a case
such as the one before the Commission today, we offer the problems
and issues to be resolved because there is always the possibility
that the Commission will disagree with staff and approve an
application. If we have not offered those issues for clarification
and resolution, we have not performed our function. Mr. Lewis
stated that if the majority of the Commission feels like this is an
entirely inappropriate land use, regardless of the design, then it
would be foolish to proceed. Mr. Lewis stated that given the
current circumstances and this discussion, we should perhaps defer
this case.
7
FILE NO.: Z-5583 Cont.
The Chairman asked to what meeting would the deferral occur. After
a brief discussion between several commissioners and the Chairman,
the decision was made to accept the deferral to November 3 Planning
Commission meeting. A motion to this effect was made. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 15, 1992)
Mr. Gene Lewis was present and represented his application.
Mr. Lewis offered a redesign of the project which significantly
improved the amount of landscaping along the frontage of Hermitage
Road. Mr. Lewis pointed out the loss of several buildings and the
reduction of others. He pointed to the increase to 25 and 35 feet
as the buffer areas and green areas around the east, south and west
property lines.
Mr. Lewis indicated that the landscape treatment in front of the
office building would be similar to that in front of the Riverdale
office warehouse complex. He expanded on his comments to indicate
that he had provided a 40 foot undisturbed green strip along the
front and maintained most of the parking and drives behind that
area. The two buildings on the front of the lot will be maintained
at 100 foot setback from Hermitage Road. These several standards
are in keeping with the kind of design incorporated in the Highway
10 Overlay. Mr. Lewis finished his remarks by stating that the
building design now incorporates a corridor for access to the rear
which eliminates visibility of the miniwarehouses from Hermitage
Road. He further stated the narrowing of the access point provides
for the installation of a gate treatment and security for the site.
After a lengthy discussion, the Committee forwarded this item to
the full Commission for final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 3, 1992)
The Chairman, Mr. McDaniel, identified the issue for the record
and asked that Richard Wood of the staff present the staff
recommendation. Richard Wood explained that this was a deferred
item from the last commission meeting. The deferral was to provide
sufficient time for the applicant to perform design work and
resubmit his application for review. Wood reported that Mr. Lewis,
the applicant, has submitted a revised plan, and staff had
performed a review. We have determined there is nothing in the
revised plan that changes our position relative to the land use
question which we feel is the primary issue at hand. The revised
site plan incorporates significant changes from the previous site
plan. Wood pointed out that the land use issue is, the adopted
land use plan's proposal for multifamily development in the area
south of Hermitage Road and east of Bowman Road. This plan
depending on how you title the uses in the project could be either
office/commercial/industrial or mix of the three. Wood reported
the staff recommendation remains as previously reported which is
denial of the application as inappropriate for the area.
8
FILE NO.: Z-5583 !C'ont.
The Chairman, Mr. McDaniel, then noted that this item was debated
at length at the last Planning Commission meeting, and it would be
appropriate at this point for Mr. Lewis to update the Commission
on the plan providing such new information as appropriate.
Mr. Gene Lewis, the applicant, then came forward and began a
presentation. Mr. Lewis offered a number of graphics for
presentation to the Commission. He characterized the discussion of
this item at the last meeting as overbuilding of the site. He
stated that after the last meeting and the deferral that he had met
with Mr. Joe White in order to redesign the project. Mr. Lewis
presented the graphic illustrating the modifications in the plan.
He pointed out the elimination of one office warehouse building
from the plan, thereby reducing the overall use by 24%.
Mr. Lewis' presentation continued with comments on the design of
the manager's residence, the buffer strips around the perimeter of
the property and the significant enlargement that had occurred
there. He also pointed out the design restriction for access to
the mini -warehouse component of the plan. He pointed out the
movement of the front office warehouse building to appoint 120 feet
from the front property line. This provided for a 40 foot
landscape buffer along Hermitage Road. He added that this is
approximately 33% more than that required. Mr. Lewis pointed out
that if you remove the floor area of the manager's office and
apartment from this plan, the amount of landscape area and open
space to be provided is approximately equivalent to the total
ground coverage of all the remaining buildings which is about 29%.
He pointed out there was a design reduction of 24% in floor space
in the office warehouses and a 12.5% reduction in the self -storage
area. He also pointed out that his open space and landscaping is
far in excess of that required by the ordinance for office or
commercial type developments.
Mr. Lewis indicated in response to the question about lighting in
last month's meeting that this project would provide for what is
called "wall packs", which is a direct lighting system to provide
a reduction in outside effect. He stated all of the exterior
buildings in the project and its compound design will be of a
masonry construction. The roof will slope to the inside and no
water runoff onto adjacent property or side yard. He indicated
that within those setback areas specified on the plan that they
will identify every tree which can be salvaged. Those which cannot
be saved will be replaced with appropriate landscaping. He pointed
out that the owner/developers are local and they are building this
project to keep.
Mr. Lewis offered as a similar kind of PUD project the Parham Place
project developed by his group on Rodney Parham Road. Mr. Lewis
pointed out the exceptional amount and type of landscape performed
on that site. He offered photographic materials representing that
project as evidence of his approach for the Hermitage Road site.
Mr. Lewis followed that comment with a statement that in the
subdivision Committee and in discussion with Richard Wood and
committee members the reduction in the design met the kind of
OJ
FILE NO.: 2-5583 (Cant.
guidelines which staff normally request. He further pointed out
that staff reported at the Subdivision Committee meeting that the
calls and comments which staff received from neighbors were
supportive and no objectors. Mr. Lewis stated at the last meeting,
that staff had said, "that with adequate buffers they could support
this application". He concluded his remarks by saying that a
project of this nature where the kind of commitments they are now
presented with, plus the landscaping requiring irrigation for its
drainage system, and the cost of maintenance on this kind of
facility, makes this an expensive project.
The Chairman then identified for the record that there was one
request card submitted by a person wishing to object to the
application. Mrs. Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters then
came forward to present her comments. Before Mrs. Bell began her
comments, Richard Wood of staff pointed out that there was in fact
one letter in the case file in support of the application and the
letter was from a neighbor. Mrs. Bell identified herself as
representing the League of Women Voters. She continued by stating
the history of this property goes back to a recent time where the
Planning Commission and Board dealt with modification of the larger
commercial area around Bowman and Chenal Parkway. At which time,
significant additional commercial was added to this neighborhood
with the line between commercial and multifamily being maintained
at Hermitage Road. She stated that the League still feels this is
an inappropriate placement of this usage. She pointed out that the
plan amendment at that time indicated that the emphasis on
commercial in this area would be centered at the Bowman and Chenal
intersection. She pointed out that the League had no concern about
changing ones mind relative to plans; however, it has only been
five months or so since this plan was thoroughly rehashed before
the Planning Commission and the Board with definite lines drawn.
Mrs. Bell pointed to an article in the Arkansas 0emocrat-Gazette
which dealt with the local market occupancy records for
multifamily. According to Mrs. Bell, the local market is reaching
the point at which additional apartments will probably be required
in this market area. She said that she had not heard a real
justification of changing the land use designation on this property
from multifamily to commercial.
At the conclusion of Mrs. Bell's remarks, a brief conversation
followed. The motion was then offered by Commissioner Walker to
accept the -revised plan. In response to Mrs. Bell's comment about
explaining their actions, Commissioner Walker went on to say that
he felt this project was incident and accessible to residential
areas. He felt this project, much like the Riverdale project
adjacent to where he is located, will be an asset to the area if
the area is developed as multifamily. After offering a second on
the motion, Commissioner Nicholson reported a recent conversation
of hers with persons which convinced her that there was a
significant demand in this area for this type of land use. She
felt this kind of land use is compatible with the higher density
residential uses. She pointed out although she was absent at the
first hearing with this item, her view of it was that the first
presentation was overbuilt. She could not have supported the item,
however, with the downsizing she has changed her mind.
10
FILE NO.: Z-5583 Cont.
Chairman McDaniel then offered comments on previous staff in the
agenda write-up. He concluded his remarks and pointed out he could
support this project. A brief discussion followed in which several
commissioners offered comments about positioning and served
relative to an item prior to a vote. The Chairman commented that
the City Attorney had previously stated that in those instances
where the Commission was apparently going to go against the staff
recommendation that such commentary should be offered.
Commissioner VonTungeln then offered several brief comments about
going against the staff recommendation and against adopted land use
plans. Commissioner VonTungeln pointed out that at some point the
City of Little Rock needed to deal with increasing its density
instead of continuing a spread. Commissioner Putnam then offered
his comments concerning the application. Mr. Putnam pointed out
that he lived in a condo project. He noted that condo and
apartment projects historically have problems with a place to park
boats and other vehicles and materials that residents are required
to store. He stated that the projects of this nature had come
about because of the demand or need by higher density residential
projects.
Ruth Bell then inserted a comment in this conversation, being that,
perhaps the Commission is saying that this kind of land use as
mini -storage or personal storage, perhaps is not properly
classified. This is more of an attempt to tie to the multifamily
land uses and perhaps should be classified in such a fashion. A
lengthy general conversation followed dealing with topics such as
the storage of RV's and regulation which has forced people to move
personal items from their residential premises to storage areas.
Commissioner Oleson then asked staff to comment on its statement
about the design. Jim Lawson stated that it was staff opinion that
design was not the issue, whether appropriate or not for the land
use. He stated he felt the staff's job was to identify issues as
being appropriate and in conformance with the adopted land use
plans. He said that staff was not saying there is not a demand for
this type of land use.
The Chairman then returned to a comment made earlier by himself
which dealt with a paragraph inserted by staff in the agenda. It
generally stated that staff could support the project if it were
downsized. He asked for clarification of this from staff since he
had placed his support for the project on that comment. Richard
Wood of staff then inserted a response to the Chairman's question.
Wood pointed out that the comment was intended to say that staff
could not support a project of this magnitude in the middle of a 40
acre segment of land, all of which is identified for multifamily
development. Wood stated the comment meant that if the project
were reduced in dimension north to south, significantly less than
the 600 feet now offered and oriented to Hermitage Road, then
perhaps an argument could be made that the zoning line should not
be the centerline of the road, but may be somewhat south of the
road.
11
FILE NO. Z-5583 Cont.
Wood also stated that the size of the project has as much to do
with our recommendation as the land use plan in that regard. A
project of this size into the heart of this sizeable acreage tract
makes commitments which will be very difficult to defend, with
respect to zoning applications from adjacent property owners facing
on Hermitage, Autumn or Bowman Roads.
Commissioner Willis then raised the question of whether or not the
staff recommendation is changeable relative to whether this project
were on the corner of Bowman Road perhaps, rather than being in the
heart of the property. Richard Wood of staff responded by saying
that on many occasions the Commission's direction for dealing with
separation between residential and commercial was the centerline of
a street, and on other occasions it was a rear lot line. Wood
restated his earlier comment that perhaps a shallow nonresidential
strip could be developed along the south side of Hermitage Road if
the plan line were moved to the rear lot line of the shallow depth.
Commissioner Walker then inserted comments, 'those primarily being
comments concerning the magnitude of the commercial development at
Bowman Road and the Parkway. He further pointed that residential
areas immediately to the north occupied by residences. Those
people had approached the City for commercial zoning on their
properties and were willing to abandoned the residential element of
the neighborhood. He pointed out that staff supported the
commitment to commercial office development on those residential
properties. He also pointed that the landscaping and open space
presented in this plan is significantly more than that offered by
the very large shopping complex recently approved at Bowman and
Chenal. He stated that he felt Hermitage Road as a cutoff between
Bowman Road and the Parkway would be a significant traffic cutoff.
He continued by saying he felt this application was a very
compatible use for the area, and properly implemented to be placed
in the heart of any neighborhood.
The Chairman then called the issue to termination and stated that
he had a motion and a second and requested a vote on the issue.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 4 nays and 1 absent.
12
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-5583
NAME: Hermitage Road - Short -Form - Planned Office Development
LOCATION: 11701 Hermitage
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
EUGENE L. LEWIS WHITE-DATERS AND ASSOCIATES
Lewis Realty and Associates 401 Victory Street
P. O. Box 7683 Little Rock, AR 72201
Little Rock, AR 72217 374-1666
376-4455
AREA: 5.27± acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: Multifamily
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
PROPOSED USES:
Burlingame Valley 21
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
None
Office, Office Warehouse
and Mini -Warehouses
This proposal is for the development of office, office warehouse
and mini -warehouses on 5.27 acres± which will contain 15,480
square feet of office and office warehouse, including an on-site
manager's office and apartment containing approximately 1,400
square feet. The balance of the project is self -storage units
(mini -warehouses) containing 64,650 square feet.
A. PROPOSAWREQUEST:
It is the developer's plan to lease the office styled
structures either as pure office or as office warehouse.
Typical users may include service companies (HVAC), elevators,
etc.) food, printing, copier and telecommunication brokers and
many others too numerous to mention that have a storage need
incidental to their office function such as medical supply
companies.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This tract of land is rolling terrain falling to the south
surrounded by a mixture of both residential and nonconforming
activity.
1
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 5 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-5583
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
1. Provide collector street improvements with sidewalks on
Hermitage Road.
2. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation ordinance apply.
Little Rock Waste Water Utility
Sewer mains located on property and easements are required
with any platting or replatting of property.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works
1. on-site fire protection will be required.
2. Existing main is six (6) inches; therefore, an extension
from the twelve (12) inch main in Bowman Road will be
required.
D. ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN:
1. overbuilding of the site.
2. Not enough buffers being provided.
3. Building design will be fire resistance construction
utilizing masonry exterior materials, steel structure and
standing -seam roofs; therefore industrial in appearance.
4. Number of units not provided.
5. The use is not permitted by the land use plan for this
area.
6. A lighting scheme for the building and driveway area was
not provided.
7. A description and plan to protect trees is required for
buffer areas during construction.
8. A nonreflecting material should be used for roofing that
will not adversely affect the adjacent residential
neighborhood.
E. ANALYSIS•
The Planning staff view of this proposal is that the design is
inadequate for the property. The commercial/industrial
character is overbuilt for the site and impose upon
neighborhood. This proposal is located inappropriately for
2
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5583
such a large scale development. The land use plan shows this
site as multifamily for 12 to 18 units per acre.
Approximately one month ago, the Planning staff did a mailout
requesting owners to comment on rezoning of this lot and
others. This mailing was associated with the Bowman Road at
Chenal Plan Amendment. The property owner was asked to
respond within a certain period of time; however, no response
was received.
Staff suggested that it could possibly support the request if
the POD and the size of the development was scaled down. A
considerable amount of the mature vegetation in a perimeter,
50 feet ± could provide buffer to the residential uses. As of
this writing, the applicant has not responded.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the Planned Office Development as
filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 3, 1992)
Eugene Lewis represented the application. There was a brief
discussion about staff's comments. This item was forwarded to the
full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(SEPTEMBER 22, 1992)
Mr. Gene Lewis was present and represented the application. There
were no objectors in attendance. The Chairman asked staff to make
its recommendation. Richard Wood of staff reported that the
recommendation remains denial of the application due to what they
perceive to be an overbuilding of the site, combined with
nonconformity with the adopted land use plan for this area and the
terrain. Wood expanded the staff recommendation to remind the
Commission that this area was recently reviewed by the Commission
for purposes of expanding the commercial office area around Bowman
Road and Chenal Parkway, and the adding of substantial new
commercial property. The staff's opinion is that nothing has
changed in any manner which would support a modification of the
land use plan on this short timeframe.
Mr. Lewis came forward with a presentation involving photographs
and materials supporting his application. He offered a
photographic history and current status on the Riverdale
mini -warehouse complex which is what he feels to be a project very
close in nature and design to the one proposed on Hermitage Road.
Mr. Lewis pointed out one of the major features of the Riverdale
Plan and the plan proposed for Hermitage is a compound design
whereby a solid wall is presented to the boundary properties to the
side and rear, with an office elevation presented to the street in
front.
3
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 5(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-5583
Mr. Lewis offered comments concerning the density and traffic
generation factors from this project versus those generated by
multifamily. He indicated that these factors would be considerably
smaller. He offered comments on the inappropriateness of a plan
with a definite line between various uses. He suggested there are
already commercial uses between this property and the parkway. The
Chairman then asked Mr. Lewis if he had a response to the staff's
position in the agenda whereby it was suggested that a scaled down
project might be better received by staff.
Mr. Lewis responded by saying he felt the compound approach would
be solid barrier walls on the perimeter had much the same effect as
a large buffer around the perimeter of the site. Mr. Lewis and the
Commission then entered into a conversation concerning whether or
not a phasing approach would allow an easing onto the site of this
use in such a manner to allow lesser impact. Commissioner Putnam
then posed a question about the PUD approach and the overbuilding
aspect as it relates to doing an architectural or site plan control
review. Jim Lawson stated that this is the issue which is before
the Commission dealing with specific design of the site. However,
it was not the staff's responsibility to design this project and
its various physical elements.
Richard Wood followed this comment by saying when a project is
overbuilt, we are looking at the density allowed for the approved
plan, the terrain of the project and its access. In other words,
the total picture and not just the numbers of units and number of
buildings. Jim Lawson then commented on the question of whether or
not phasing would reduce the impact identified by staff. He stated
that he felt like the project of this magnitude should not be
built.
Mr. Lewis returned to his presentation of the photographs of the
Riverdale project and pointed out the material, landscaping and the
significant ground covers. Commissioner Walker then offered a
comment to the effect that he recalls that the plan shown at the
Subdivision Committee did not reflect the kind of landscaping and
treatment in front as that which is represented by Mr. Lewis'
presentation. Mr. Walker added a comment that he thought the
compound approach was an excellent approach for this type of land
use; however, he had some reservation about its placement on this
site. However, he modified this comment by saying he was not sure
how critical that was if the street frontage of the property is
well done.
Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Lewis if he had discussed this with
Bob Brown in the Landscape Office, the treatment of the front of
this property. Especially as to whether or not he is able to meet
the requirement of ordinance, Mr. Lewis stated that he discussed
the plan with Bob Brown. Mr. Brown had offered several comments
about movements of buildings and such. Mr. Lewis indicated that he
was about 2,800 feet short of the ordinance requirement in one
4
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont_) FILE NO.: 2-5583
area, but he picked up 4,300 feet in another area. Mr. Walker
commented that he would be surprised if he visited the site and
found that its appearance to be as that represented by Mr. Lewis'
photographs. Mr. Lewis pointed out that these photographs, of
course, represent mature landscaping which has been in place for a
number of years.
Commissioner Walker then asked Mr. Lewis if he was changing his
design to accommodate the circumstance of this application. Mr.
Lewis responded by saying that he felt the land use issue was the
more critical at this point and he felt like he would then be
coming back to deal with other specific issues. It was pointed to
Mr. Lewis that the procedure normally does not involve simply
approving the land use on the PUD, and then returning at some later
date to deal with specifics. (The PUD process being a total
package for review.) Commissioner Walker indicated that as far as
he was concerned the treatment on the Hermitage frontage was a key
to whether or not he supported the application. He also indicated
that he was one who believed that you could do almost anything
anywhere if it is done properly. He said that he would be
encouraged to support the application if the landscaping and
buffering along the front is accomplished properly.
Chairman McDaniel then stated he felt that there were some
commissioners who would like Mr. Lewis to move to his copy of the
agenda under Item D and specifically respond to the eight items
which had been provided by staff and their commentary. Mr. Lewis
then attempted to respond to the several issues in the Staff
Analysis. His general response was one that he felt like he and
developer could not comply with the type of standards the staff had
discussed.
The discussion then moved to a question raised by Commissioner
Putnam as to how many buildings are in the complex and of what
nature. Mr. Lewis pointed out that there were two office warehouse
buildings in the front of the project which had substantial office
involvement. The balance of the structures on the property would
be conventional mini -warehouse buildings, with five structures in
the core and three perimeter buildings. In response to another
commissioner, Mr. Lewis stated there would be approximately 500
rental spaces within the complex. He went on to point out that the
lighting system would be wall mounted and down directed, the front
buildings containing the offices would have flood lights which
would be directed to the face of the building. His response to the
ordinance requirement for him to provide a plan for saving trees on
the site in the buffer areas was that they would rather not try to
save existing trees, but to plant new ones. Mr. Lewis stated the
roof system would be nonreflective. They proposed a standup
galvanized metal roof which comes in many colors. He followed that
comment by stating that all of the roofs would face inward and
would not be visible to surrounding areas.
5
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 5 Cont. FILE NO.: 7-5583
Commissioner Willis then posed a question to staff about the
downsizing discussed earlier and what it would mean; two or three
buildings? Staff again responded by stating they were not talking
about specific numbers or buildings, but the total conflicts
involved. A brief discussion then led staff to comment that our
recommendation and our feeling about these types of project is one
that says you should determine the appropriateness of the use
before you design the project, and at this point, staff was not
trying to design the project. Wood stated that if you start
designing the project to the extent you feel comfortable with it,
then you are getting away from the land use plan and its original
intent, which is decide the use first.
Commissioner Walker then posed a question by asking if that is the
case then why do we have PUD's and POD's and PCD's so that we can
design to the specific location. He stated that if the applicant
could meet the buffer and setback requirements and given the kind
of design, this project offers, which is considerably more than the
conventional mini -warehouse, given the solid walls and the office
warehouse front. A lengthy discussion then ensued involving
several staff and commmissioners on the appropriateness of the
types of density represented in this application.
Commissioner Putnam then offered comments concerning the designs of
various mini -warehouse complexes in the city. Some appropriate and
some not and some well-designed, others are poorly designed. It
was his feeling that he could not see a detriment to the land use
in this area from the placement of a well-designed mini -warehouse
on this street.
Chairman McDaniel then pointed out to Mr. Lewis that given the
kinds of issues raised by staff in their analysis, and the
differences that are apparent from the discussion in this meeting,
he might not get the support for his project in today's meeting.
The Chairman told Mr. Lewis that he would happy be to have him come
back to speak shortly, but he had another person which desired to
make comments on this issue.
Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters, offered
comments on the application with specific emphasis on the past four
months. Ms. Bell stated that during this time the City Planning
Commission and the Board went through an exercise to change the
land use plan in this area and increase the amount of commercial
and office on properties north and west of here. She expressed
that nothing she had heard today convinces her that the
circumstance has changed in this short time. Since the plan was
changed to accommodate all of this commercial which would support
an additional development, she requested the Commission reject this
application on this basis.
N
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 5(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-5583
Chairman McDaniel then offered a statement that he felt it would be
very good if we could simply draw plans and put lines in place that
would stay forever. However, we cannot choose who owns properties
or the market desires in a given area. He reminded everyone that
at best, a plan is general in nature. Ms. Bell responded by saying
she did not like seeing a plan "pecked to death". She expressed a
thought that she did not like seeing a plan not given sufficient
time to see if it is going to work. She stated with the Commission
meeting every two weeks that perhaps they are not aware that they
do, in fact, "nibble away" at plans an incremental basis.
The Chairman then asked Mr. Lewis to make his closing comments.
Mr. Lewis stated that the POD plan which was filed was offered for
review. He did not simply want to come in for a commercial zoning.
He agreed with Commissioner Walker's comment that the front door
image of the project and driveby relationship was the more critical
issue. He stated that he certainly did not mind pulling out one
building, thereby moving the total project back from the roadway up
to 40 feet and providing additional landscaping at the front door
of the project. Mr. Lewis stated that although the staff pointed
out a 50 foot grade change across the property from north to south.
He would probably develop the project with a total of 25 feet of
grade change because of an old pond on the south end giving false
impression. He felt providing the additional grass area and side
buffer was critical. He stated that he did not mind refiling and
coming back to the Commission if it would help the staff and the
Commission to give him an affirmative vote.
Chairman McDaniel pointed out that he did not disagree with the
concept; however, with this many differences between staff and the
applicant, he felt like he could not support the application at
this meeting. The Chairman stated that if Mr. Lewis would come
back after meeting with the staff and try to resolve these
differences, he could perhaps support the request. The Chairman
stated for the record that if the Commission voted on this
application and if it were denied, the applicant could not refile
this same request within a year. The staff clarified that saying
it could be refiled as a PUD with a more restrictive nature as long
as it is substantially different from this application. Mr. Lewis
suggested that he would be willing to work with the staff toward
this end.
Commissioner Oleson then commented that, that may be what Mr. Lewis
wants to do; however, land use is the primary issue. Commissioner
Oleson felt it should be understood that just because Mr. Lewis
leaves the meeting today and spends two weeks perhaps talking with
staff, this does not mean that the application will be approved.
Richard Wood then inserted a thought he felt would clarify the
staff's position a little more on this subject. Wood stated, "Many
times because the staff has a lot of conditions or apparent
7
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 5 (C_ont. FILE NO.: 2-5583
suggestions for resolution of an application's problems that those
are only things required to be solved in order to gain support for
approval. Staff's position is one of first stating denial or
approval in a recommendation, and then commenting on the specifics
of the item before the Commission."
Wood stated that he felt staff would be remiss in their
responsibilities if they simply said recommend approval or denial
without going into the issues attendant to the case. In a case
such as the one before the Commission today, we offer the problems
and issues to be resolved because there is always the possibility
that the Commission will disagree with staff and approve an
application. If we have not offered those issues for clarification
and resolution, we have not performed our function. Mr. Lewis
stated that if the majority of the Commission feels like this is an
entirely inappropriate land use, regardless of the design, then it
would be foolish to proceed. Mr. Lewis stated that given the
current circumstances and this discussion, we should perhaps defer
this case.
The Chairman asked to what meeting would the deferral occur. After
a brief discussion between several commissioners and the Chairman,
the decision was made to accept the deferral to November 3 Planning
Commission meeting. A motion to this effect was made. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent.
8
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.• Z-5583
NAME: Hermitage Road - Short -Form - Planned Office Development
LOCATION: 11701 Hermitage
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
EUGENE L. LEWIS WHITE-DATERS AND ASSOCIATES
Lewis Realty and Associates 401 Victory Street
P. O. Box 7683 Little Rock, AR 72201
Little Rock, AR 72217 374-1666
376-4455
AREA: 5.27± acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: Multifamily PROPOSED USES: Office, Office Warehouse
and Mini -Warehouses
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
Burlingame Valley 21
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
None
This proposal is for the development of office, office warehouse
and mini -warehouses on 5.27 acres± which will contain 15,480
square feet of office and office warehouse, including an on-site
manager's office and apartment containing approximately 1,400
square feet. The balance of the project is self -storage units
(mini -warehouses) containing 64,650 square feet.
A. PROPOSALIREQUEST:
It is the developer's plan to lease the office styled
structures either as pure office or as office warehouse.
Typical users may include service companies (HVAC), elevators,
etc.) food, printing, copier and telecommunication brokers and
many others too numerous to mention that have a storage need
incidental to their office function such as medical supply
companies.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This tract of land is rolling terrain falling to the south
surrounded by a mixture of both residential and nonconforming
activity.
1
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 5 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-5583
C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS:
1. Provide collector street improvements with sidewalks on
Hermitage Road.
2. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinance apply.
Little Rock Waste Water Utility
Sewer mains located on property and easements are required
with any platting or replatting of property.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works
1. On-site fire protection will be required.
2. Existing main is six (6) inches; therefore, an extension
from the twelve (12) inch main in Bowman Road will be
required.
D. ISSUESILEGAL/TECHNICALIDESIGN:
1. Overbuilding of the site.
2. Not enough buffers being provided.
3. Building design will be fire resistance construction
utilizing masonry exterior materials, steel structure and
standing -seam roofs; therefore industrial in appearance.
4. Number of units not provided.
5. The use is not permitted by the land use plan for this
area.
6. A lighting scheme for the building and driveway area was
not provided.
7. A description and plan to protect trees is required for
buffer areas during construction.
8. A nonreflecting material should be used for roofing that
will not adversely affect the adjacent residential
neighborhood.
E. ANALYSIS•
The Planning staff view of this proposal is that the design is
inadequate for the property. The commercial/industrial
character is overbuilt for the site and impose upon
neighborhood. This proposal is located inappropriately for
2
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 5(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-5583
such a large scale development. The land use plan shows this
site as multifamily for 12 to 18 units per acre.
Approximately one month ago, the Planning staff did a mailout
requesting owners to comment on rezoning of this lot and
others. This mailing was associated with the Bowman Road at
Chenal Plan Amendment. The property owner was asked to
respond within a certain period of time; however, no response
was received.
Staff suggested that it could possibly support the request if
the POD and the size of the development was scaled down. A
considerable amount of the mature vegetation in a perimeter,
50 feet ± could provide buffer to the residential uses. As of
this writing, the applicant has not responded.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the Planned Office Development as
filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 3, 1992)
Eugene Lewis represented the application. There was a brief
discussion about staff's comments. This item was forwarded to the
full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 22, 1992)
Mr. Gene Lewis was present and represented the application. There
were no objectors in attendance. The Chairman asked staff to make
its recommendation. Richard Wood of staff reported that the
recommendation remains denial of the application due to what they
perceive to be an overbuilding of the site, combined with
nonconformity with the adopted land use plan for this area and the
terrain. Wood expanded the staff recommendation to remind the
Commission that this area was recently reviewed by the Commission
for purposes of expanding the commercial office area around Bowman
Road and Chenal Parkway, and the adding of substantial new
commercial property. The staff's opinion is that nothing has
changed in any manner which would support a modification of the
land use plan on this short timeframe.
Mr. Lewis came forward with a presentation involving photographs
and materials supporting his application. He offered a
photographic history and current status on the Riverdale
mini -warehouse complex which is what he feels to be a project very
close in nature and design to the one proposed on Hermitage Road.
Mr. Lewis pointed out one of the major features of the Riverdale
Plan and the plan proposed for Hermitage is a compound design
whereby a solid wall is presented to the boundary properties to the
side and rear, with an office elevation presented to the street in
front.
3
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 5 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-5583
Mr. Lewis offered comments concerning the density and traffic
generation factors from this project versus those generated by
multifamily. He indicated that these factors would be considerably
smaller. He offered comments on the inappropriateness of a plan
with a definite line between various uses. He suggested there are
already commercial uses between this property and the parkway. The
Chairman then asked Mr. Lewis if he had a response to the staff's
position in the agenda whereby it was suggested that a scaled down
project might be better received by staff.
Mr. Lewis responded by saying he felt the compound approach would
be solid barrier walls on the perimeter had much the same effect as
a large buffer around the perimeter of the site. Mr. Lewis and the
Commission then entered into a conversation concerning whether or
not a phasing approach would allow an easing onto the site of this
use in such a manner to allow lesser impact. Commissioner Putnam
then posed a question about the PUD approach and the overbuilding
aspect as it relates to doing an architectural or site plan control
review. Jim Lawson stated that this is the issue which is before
the Commission dealing with specific design of the site. However,
it was not the staff's responsibility to design this project and
its various physical elements.
Richard Wood followed this comment by saying when a project is
overbuilt, we are looking at the density allowed for the approved
plan, the terrain of the project and its access. In other words,
the total picture and not just the numbers of units and number of
buildings. Jim Lawson then commented on the question of whether or
not phasing would reduce the impact identified by staff. He stated
that he felt like the project of this magnitude should not be
built.
Mr. Lewis returned to his presentation of the photographs of the
Riverdale project and pointed out the material, landscaping and the
significant ground covers. Commissioner Walker then offered a
comment to the effect that he recalls that the plan shown at the
Subdivision Committee did not reflect the kind of landscaping and
treatment in front as that which is represented by Mr. Lewis'
presentation. Mr. Walker added a comment that he thought the
compound approach was an excellent approach for this type of land
use; however, he had some reservation about its placement on this
site. However, he modified this comment by saying he was not sure
how critical that was if the street frontage of the property is
well done.
Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Lewis if he had discussed this with
Bob Brown in the Landscape Office, the treatment of the front of
this property. Especially as to whether or not he is able to meet
the requirement of ordinance, Mr. Lewis stated that he discussed
the plan with Bob Brown. Mr. Brown had offered several comments
about movements of buildings and such. Mr. Lewis indicated that he
was about 2,800 feet short of the ordinance requirement in one
4
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 5 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-5583
area, but he picked up 4,300 feet in another area. Mr. Walker
commented that he would be surprised if he visited the site and
found that its appearance to be as that represented by Mr. Lewis'
photographs. Mr. Lewis pointed out that these photographs, of
course, represent mature landscaping which has been in place for a
number of years.
Commissioner Walker then asked Mr. Lewis if he was changing his
design to accommodate the circumstance of this application. Mr.
Lewis responded by saying that he felt the land use issue was the
more critical at this point and he felt like he would then be
coming back to deal with other specific issues. It was pointed to
Mr. Lewis that the procedure normally does not involve simply
approving the land use on the PUD, and then returning at some later
date to deal with specifics. (The PUD process being a total
package for review.) Commissioner Walker indicated that as far as
he was concerned the treatment on the Hermitage frontage was a key
to whether or not he supported the application. He also indicated
that he was one who believed that you could do almost anything
anywhere if it is done properly. He said that he would be
encouraged to support the application if the landscaping and
buffering along the front is accomplished properly.
Chairman McDaniel then stated he felt that there were some
commissioners who would like Mr. Lewis to move to his copy of the
agenda under Item D and specifically respond to the eight items
which had been provided by staff and their commentary. Mr. Lewis
then attempted to respond to the several issues in the Staff
Analysis. His general response was one that he felt like he and
developer could not comply with the type of standards the staff had
discussed.
The discussion then moved to a question raised by Commissioner
Putnam as to how many buildings are in the complex and of what
nature. Mr. Lewis pointed out that there were two office warehouse
buildings in the front of the project which had substantial office
involvement. The balance of the structures on the property would
be conventional mini -warehouse buildings, with five structures in
the core and three perimeter buildings. In response to another
commissioner, Mr. Lewis stated there would be approximately 500
rental spaces within the complex. He went on to point out that the
lighting system would be wall mounted and down directed, the front
buildings containing the offices would have flood lights which
would be directed to the face of the building. His response to the
ordinance requirement for him to provide a plan for saving trees on
the site in the buffer areas was that they would rather not try to
save existing trees, but to plant new ones. Mr. Lewis stated the
roof system would be nonreflective. They proposed a standup
galvanized metal roof which comes in many colors. He followed that
comment by stating that all of the roofs would face inward and
would not be visible to surrounding areas.
5
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 5 Cont. FILE NO.: 2-5583
Commissioner Willis then posed a question to staff about the
downsizing discussed earlier and what it would mean; two or three
buildings? Staff again responded by stating they were not talking
about specific numbers or buildings, but the total conflicts
involved. A brief discussion then led staff to comment that our
recommendation and our feeling about these types of project is one
that says you should determine the appropriateness of the use
before you design the project, and at this point, staff was not
trying to design the project. Wood stated that if you start
designing the project to the extent you feel comfortable with it,
then you are getting away from the land use plan and its original
intent, which is decide the use first.
Commissioner Walker then posed a question by asking if that is the
case then why do we have PUD's and POD's and PCD's so that we can
design to the specific location. He stated that if the applicant
could meet the buffer and setback requirements and given the kind
of design, this project offers, which is considerably more than the
conventional mini -warehouse, given the solid walls and the office
warehouse front. A lengthy discussion then ensued involving
several staff and commmissioners on the appropriateness of the
types of density represented in this application.
Commissioner Putnam then offered comments concerning the designs of
various mini -warehouse complexes in the city. Some appropriate and
some not and some well-designed, others are poorly designed. It
was his feeling that he could not see a detriment to the land use
in this area from the placement of a well-designed mini -warehouse
on this street.
Chairman McDaniel then pointed out to Mr. Lewis that given the
kinds of issues raised by staff in their analysis, and the
differences that are apparent from the discussion in this meeting,
he might not get the support for his project in today's meeting.
The Chairman told Mr. Lewis that he would happy be to have him come
back to speak shortly, but he had another person which desired to
make comments on this issue.
Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters, offered
comments on the application with specific emphasis on the past four
months. Ms. Bell stated that during this time the City Planning
Commission and the Board went through an exercise to change the
land use plan in this area and increase the amount of commercial
and office on properties north and west of here. She expressed
that nothing she had heard today convinces her that the
circumstance has changed in this short time. Since the plan was
changed to accommodate all of this commercial which would support
an additional development, she requested the Commission reject this
application on this basis.
R
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 5 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-5583
Chairman McDaniel then offered a statement that he felt it would be
very good if we could simply draw plans and put lines in place that
would stay forever. However, we cannot choose who owns properties
or the market desires in a given area. He reminded everyone that
at best, a plan is general in nature. Ms. Bell responded by saying
she did not like seeing a plan "pecked to death". She expressed a
thought that she did not like seeing a plan not given sufficient
time to see if it is going to work. She stated with the Commission
meeting every two weeks that perhaps they are not aware that they
do, in fact, "nibble away" at plans an incremental basis.
The Chairman then asked Mr. Lewis to make his closing comments.
Mr. Lewis stated that the POD plan which was filed was offered for
review. He did not simply want to come in for a commercial zoning.
He agreed with Commissioner Walker's comment that the front door
image of the project and driveby relationship was the more critical
issue. He stated that he certainly did not mind pulling out one
building, thereby moving the total project back from the roadway up
to 40 feet and providing additional landscaping at the front door
of the project. Mr. Lewis stated that although the staff pointed
out a 50 foot grade change across the property from north to south.
He would probably develop the project with a total of 25 feet of
grade change because of an old pond on the south end giving false
impression. He felt providing the additional grass area and side
buffer was critical. He stated that he did not mind refiling and
coming back to the Commission if it would help the staff and the
Commission to give him an affirmative vote.
Chairman McDaniel pointed out that he did not disagree with the
concept; however, with this many differences between staff and the
applicant, he felt like he could not support the application at
this meeting. The Chairman stated that if Mr. Lewis would come
back after meeting with the staff and try to resolve these
differences, he could perhaps support the request. The Chairman
stated for the record that if the Commission voted on this
application and if it were denied, the applicant could not refile
this same request within a year. The staff clarified that saying
it could be refiled as a PUD with a more restrictive nature as long
as it is substantially different from this application. Mr. Lewis
suggested that he would be willing to work with the staff toward
this end.
Commissioner Oleson then commented that, that may be what Mr. Lewis
wants to do; however, land use is the primary issue. Commissioner
Oleson felt it should be understood that just because Mr. Lewis
leaves the meeting today and spends two weeks perhaps talking with
staff, this does not mean that the application will be approved.
Richard Wood then inserted a thought he felt would clarify the
staff's position a little more on this subject. Wood stated, "Many
times because the staff has a lot of conditions or apparent
7
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z--5583
suggestions for resolution of an application's problems that those
are only things required to be solved in order to gain support for
approval. Staff's position is one of first stating denial or
approval in a recommendation, and then commenting on the specifics
of the item before the Commission."
Wood stated that he felt staff would be remiss in their
responsibilities if they simply said recommend approval or denial
without going into the issues attendant to the case. In a case
such as the one before the Commission today, we offer the problems
and issues to be resolved because there is always the possibility
that the Commission will disagree with staff and approve an
application. If we have not offered those issues for clarification
and resolution, we have not performed our function. Mr. Lewis
stated that if the majority of the Commission feels like this is an
entirely inappropriate land use, regardless of the design, then it
would be foolish to proceed. Mr. Lewis stated that given the
current circumstances and this discussion, we should perhaps defer
this case.
The Chairman asked to what meeting would the deferral occur. After
a brief discussion between several commissioners and the Chairman,
the decision was made to accept the deferral to November 3 Planning
Commission meeting. A motion to this effect was made. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent.
8