Loading...
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