Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3410 Staff AnalysisNovember 27, 1979 Item No. 10 - Z-3410 - DEFERRED Owner: Applicant: Request: Purpose: Existing Zoning: Location: Site Characteristics: Size: Existing Land Use: Abutting Land Use and Zoning: Zoning History: Applicable Regulations: George Flowers Burton Speights Rezone to "E-1" Quiet Business Office Development "A" One Family Northwest Corner Hermitage and Hardin Roads Rolling and Wooded 2.27 Acres + Vacant North - Vacant Unclassified South - Vacant Unclassified East - Vacant Zoned "F" West - Single Family Zoned "A" None The Zoning Ordinance FACTUAL INFORMATION November 27, 1979 Item 10 1. NEED AND/OR DEMAND The applicant intends to combine this property into the ongoing development of the One Financial Center office complex. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLANS Though no specific plan covers this area, the land use pattern has been well established in this part of the City. The final street pattern for this area will more clearly demonstrate the need to combine this property with the rest of the office park. It should also be pointed out that this property lies within the I-430 Corridor zoning Plan study area. Staff is on record as endorsing a moritorium on conventional zoning requests within this area pending completion of the final zoning map. 3. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS No adverse effects are anticipated. 4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION None expressed. 5. PUBLIC SERVICES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received from any department. 6. UTILITIES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received. 7. EFFECT ON PUBLIC FINANCES No particular fiscal impact is expected. 8. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/REASONABLENESS The property abuts "F" zoning to the east, and "E-1" zoning has been considered suitable for transition between residential and nonresidential areas. November 27, 1979 Item 10 - Continued 9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY No standards of quality have been addressed. The "E-1" and "F" zoning classifications requested provide the City with no assurance of design quality. We believe, however, that the "marketplace" will insure that this area will evolve as an attractive suburban office park. 10. TRAFFIC AND STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY No traffic or right-of-way issues attend this case. The applicant, through the development process, is completely redesigning the street system in this area. ANALYSIS Pyramid Park office development is an expensive and substantial undertaking, one involving major street construction and other improvements. It is precisely the kind of real estate project which staff had in mind when it incorporated an "0-2" Office and Institutional District (with site plan review) in the new Zoning Ordinance. As envisioned, this project will consist of a grouping of freestanding surburban office buildings surrounded by parking and attractive landscaping. Under the requested zoning classifications, however, there is no way we can be assured that this will be the case. We will have to rely upon land values and the developer's solid record over time to assure us of this result. A further complication is the fact that the developer has chosen to deal with this property on an incremental basis, dealing with each tract within the site individually, rather than as part of a preplanned totality. This, however, is the common approach in Little Rock for projects of this type. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval subject to resolution of the screening controversy between the applicant and the residents on Springwood Drive. November 27, 1979 Item 10 - Continued COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present, and there were several neighbors present wanting further clarification of the issues in this matter. One objector, Bob Boyd, (513 Springwood Drive) stated his preference for the fence which had been agreed to by both the neighborhood and the developer being placed on the east side of a 25' green belt which had been promised as a buffer between the proposed development and the single family dwellings to the west. A discussion ensued involving the leqal ramifications of following Mr. Boyd's suggestion wherein it was determined that were the fenced to be placed in this manner that eventually the 25' strip would become the property of those owners to the west, and that the applicant's client, the current property owner, would, in fact, lose the 25' strip land without any compensation. Mr. Boyd stated that he was willing to sign an agreement waiving his rights to any portion of the 25' strip. Finally, after a lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission moved to approve the application with inclusion of the provisions in the signed agreement between the owner of the property and several owners of residential property on Springwood Drive wherein the developer agreed to leave a 25' undisturbed strW-e ground with landscaping and to erect a 6' fence on the property line. A copy of the agreement is in the case The motion was passed - 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. October 23, 1979 Item No. 8 - Z-3410 Owner: Fausett and Company, Inc. and George Flowers Applicant: A.B. Speights Request: Rezone the East Half of the Property to "F" Commercial and. the West Half to "E-1" Quiet Business Purpose: Office and Commercial Development Existing Zoning: "A" One Family Location: Northwest Corner Hermitage anJ Hardin Roads Site Characteristics: Rolling and Wooded Size: 4.54 Acres + Existing Land Use: Vacant Abutting Land Use North - Vacant and Zoning: Unclassified South - Vacant Unclassified East - Vacant Zoned "F" West - Single Family Zoned "A" Zoning History: None Applicable Regulations: The Zoning Ordinance FACTUAL INFORMATION October 23, 1979 Item 8 1. NEED AND/OR DEMAND The applicant intends to combine this property into the ongoing development of the One Financial Center office complex. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLANS Though no specific plan covers this area, the land use pattern has been well established in this part of the City. The final street pattern for this area will more clearly demonstrate the need to combine this property with the rest of the office park. It should also be pointed out that this property lies within the I-430 Corridor Zoning Plan study area. Staff is on record as endorsing a moritorium on conventional zoning requests within this area pending completion of the final zoning map. 3. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS No adverse effects are anticipated. 4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION None expressed. 5. PUBLIC SERVICES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received from any department. 6. UTILITIES/EFFECT ON No adverse comments have been received. 7. EFFECT ON PUBLIC FINANCES No particular fiscal impact is expected. B. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/REASONABLENESS The property abuts "F" zoning to the east, and "E-1" zoning has been considered suitable for transition between residential and nonresidential areas. October 23, 1979 Item 8 - Continued 9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY No standards of quality have been addressed. The "E-1" and "F" zoning classifications requested provide the City with no assurance of design quality. We believe, however, that the "marketplace" will insure that this area will evolve as an attractive suburban office park. 10. TRAFFIC AND STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY No traffic or right-of-way issues attend this case. The applicant, through the development process, is completely redesigning the street system in this area. ANALYSIS Pyramid Park office development is an expensive and substantial undertaking, one involving major street construction and other improvements. It is precisely the kind of real estate project which staff had in mind when it incorporated an "0-2" Office and Institutional District (with site plan review) in the new Zoning Ordinance. As envisioned, this project will consist of a grouping of freestanding surburban office buildings surrounded by parking and attractive landscaping. Under the requested zoning classifications, however, there is no way we can be assured that this will be the case. We will have to rely upon land values and the developer's solid record over time to assure us of this result. A further complication is the fact that the developer has chosen to deal with this property on an incremental basis, dealing with each tract within the site individually, rather than as part of a preplanned totality. This, however, is the common approach in Little Rock for projects of this type. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The above comments constitute our assessment of this proposal. We cannot formally endorse a mix of "F" and "E-1" zoning on this property for reasons cited previously. We do recognize, nonetheless, that even within the context of Little Rock's present inadequate zoning, the end result is likely to be entirely satisfactory.