HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3410-C Staff Analysis1. Meetin Date: October 4, 1994
2. Case No.: Z -3410-C
3. ReQuest: Establish HAMPTON INN -- SHORT -FORM PCD
4. Location: At the northwest corner of Financial Center
Parkway and Hardin Rd.
5. Owner Applicant: Geoff Trust, Wally Allen Trustee
6. Existing Status: Vacant; zoned C-3 and 0-3
7. Proposed Use: Hotel
8. Staff Recommendation: Approval
9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval
10. Conditions or Issues Remaining to be Resolved: None
11. Right -of -Way Issues: None
12. Recommendation Forwarded With: A vote of 6 ayes, 2 nays, 0
absent, 2 abstentions (Ball and Putnam), and 1 open position
13. Objectors: Kenneth M. Davis & Floyd B. Boyd; Birchwood
Neighborhood Association.
14. Neighborhood Contact Person/Others: Doyle Daniel,
president, Birchwood Neighborhood Association
15. Neighborhood Plan: I-430 (11)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PLANNED
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TITLED HAMPTON INN --
SHORT-FORM PCD (Z -3410-C), AND LOCATED AT
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FINANCIAL CENTER
PARKWAY AND HARDIN ROAD, IN THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING CHAPTER
36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK; AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. That the zone classification of the following
described property be changed from C-3 and 0-3 to PCD.
A parcel of land in Section 4, T -1-N, R -13-W, and located at
the northwest corner of Financial Center Parkway and Autumn
Road, Little Rock, Arkansas, being more particularly
described as follows:
Part of Lots 21, 28, and 29, West Highland Subdivision, and
part of Hardin Road (Closed), being described as: Beginning
at the Northwest corner of Lot 21, said West Highland
Subdivision; thence S 890 31' 06" E along the North line of
said Lot 21, 296.70' to a point on the West ROW line of
Hardin Rd.; thence S 000 32' 14" E along said West ROW line,
235.15' to a point; thence Southeasterly and continuing
along said West ROW line, being the arc of a 215.99' radius
curve to the left, having a chord bearing and a distance of
S 15° 10' 57" E, 109.02' to a point; thence S 290 49' 11" E
and continuing along said West ROW line 60.90' to a point;
thence S 600 10' 40" W, 63.35' to a point; thence S 890 27'
46" W, 297.34' to a point on the W line of said Lot 28;
thence N 000 43' 29" W along the W line of said Lot 28 and
along the W line of Lot 21, said West Highland Subdivision,
430.01' to the POB, containing 2.998 acres, more or less.
SECTION 2. That the preliminary site development
plan/plat be approved as recommended by the Little Rock Planning
Commission.
SECTION 3. That the change in zoning classification
contemplated for HAMPTON INN SHORT -FORM PCD is conditioned upon
obtaining a final plan approval within the time specified by
Chapter 36-454(d) of the Code of Ordinances.
SECTION 4. That the map referred to in Chapter 36 of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and
designated district map be and it is hereby amended to the extent
and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change
provided for in Section 1 hereof.
SECTION 5. That this ORDINANCE shall take effect and be
in full force upon final approval of the plan.
PASSED:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Mayor
FILE NO.: Z- 410-C
NAME: HAMPTON INN -- SHORT -FORM PCD
LOCATION: At the northwest corner of Financial Center Parkway
and Hardin Road
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER-
GOFF TRUST Robert Brown
WALLY ALLEN, TRUSTEE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC.
2220 Cottondale Ln., #2 10411 W. Markham St., Suite 210
P. O. Box 29 Little Rock, AR 72205
Little Rock, AR 72203 221-7880
664-3332
AREA: 3.0 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: C-3 & 0-3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
VARIANCES REOUESTED: None
TATEME T F PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES: Hotel
The applicant proposes the development of a 3 acre tract for the
construction of a hotel and associated parking. The hotel tower
footprint is 60 feet wide by 222 feet long. The tower is 60 feet
high, contains 79,920 square feet in 6 floors, and has 153 guest
rooms. The entrance canopy is separate from the hotel tower, and
is a 45 foot square structure attached to the hotel by a covered
walk. Parking for 162 vehicles is.planned. The hotel is a
"limited service" hotel, and contains is no restaurant or
convention facilities. A small swimming pool for guests of the
hotel is provided. The site for the proposed hotel, and for
which the PCD is requested, occupies the northern 430 feet
(3 acres) of a 4.67 acre site, leaving two outparcels along
Financial Center Parkway remaining outside the scope of the PCD.
There are two entrance drives to the property: one is in a
200 foot long access easement from Financial Center Parkway which
lies between the two cited outparcels; the other is from Hardin
Rd. The proposal includes providing a natural and planted buffer
along the western boundary of the site abutting the residential
neighborhood to the west. The 33 feet abutting the residences is
proposed to be an undisturbed buffer. To the east of this area,
17 additional feet (±) of area is proposed to be used for needed
slope transition, and will be a be replanted to "create a
screening mass below the canopy of the larger existing trees".
The total buffer which is proposed, then, averages 50 feet in
width. A 6 foot high "good neighbor" fence is shown along the
western boundary of the site.
FILE NO.: X410 -C (Qont . )
A. PR P AL RE UEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is sought for a PCD to permit the construction
of a 153 room, 79,920 square foot, 60 foot high/6 story
hotel on a 3 acre site. The foot print of the primary
building is proposed to be 60 feet by 222 feet with an
entrance and drive-thru canopy at the south end of the
building. No restaurant or convention facilities are
proposed; however, a swimming pool is planned. Parking for
162 vehicles is to be provided. The proposal includes
providing a 50 foot (±) natural and landscaped buffer along
the west property line and a 6 foot high privacy fence
abutting the residences along Springwood Drive to the west.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is presently undeveloped and wooded. The terrain
slopes generally from a high point at the southwest corner
of the PCD tract to the low point at the northeast corner
along Hardin Rd. The differential in elevation is
approximately 48 feet.
The existing zoning of the tract is C-3 and 0-3. A north -
south line dividing the tract almost in half separates the
two zoning districts, with the 0-3 district lying west of
this line abutting the residential properties to the west,
and with the C-3 district lying east of this line. The
remainder of the subdivision out of which this tract is
extracted lies north and south of the PCD tract. The
property to the north is zoned 0-3. To the south are the
two outparcels being left apart from the PCD tract, with the
eastern parcel being zoned C-3; the western tract, 0-3.
Across Hardin Road to the east is a PCD district; to the
west is R-2.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that a sketch grading and drainage
plan is required. The access drive off Chenal Parkway is to
be a right turn in/right turn out only due to inadequate
site distance. Before issuance of a building permit,
engineering will require plans for stormwater detention and
complete grading and drainage plans.
Water Works wishes to install a water main extension from
Eric Dr. to Hardin Rd. A 15' wide water line easement would
be required from the south line of Lot 3 across the buffer
area to tie into Eric Dr.
Wastewater reports that a capacity analysis will be
required. If capacity is available, the capacity
contribution fees and Farm Bureau Fees will be assessed.
2
FILE NO.: Z -3410-C (Cgnt.)
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without
comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements.
The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment.
Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for
buffers, landscaping, and land use screening meet Ordinance
requirements.
Land Use review comments that the site is in the I-430
Planning District and is designated as Mixed Office and
Commercial (MOC) on the land use plan. The MOC designation
suggests a mixture of office and commercial uses with a PUD
recommended if the use is entirely commercial. The proposed
hotel is consistent with the plan.
D. _ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICALZDESIGN:
The Zoning Regulations (Sect. 36-502.1.f) states that, for
hotel uses, there is to be 1 parking space for each guest
room, plus 10% for employees and non -guest users patronizing
meeting rooms, restaurants, etc.. To meet the requirements,
then, with 153 guest rooms, the site plan would have to
provide 168 parking spaces. Parking for 162 vehicles is
proposed in the PCD application.
In 1984, neighbors abutting the property to the west filed a
lawsuit contesting the Board of Adjustments approval which
would permit the construction of a multi -story office
building on the site. A consent judgment was agreed to by
the parties in which the proposed building was to maintain a
setback from the west property line of 165 feet; it was to
have a maximum height of 93 feet or 8 stories; any parking
deck was not to be closer than 60 feet, with a roof top
parking area of the deck not higher than a ground elevation
of 486 feet MSL; the buffer zone was to be a 43 foot wide
natural buffer, reducing to a 25 foot wide natural buffer at
the south approximately 80 feet of the current PCD site,
with the buffer being cleared of undergrowth, etc.; and,
there was to be a planting fund made available to the
residential neighbors to re -plant the buffer. The consent
judgment was to continue as binding for 20 years or until
the character of the residential neighborhood changed
substantially. It was only in force, though, if the
developer "desires to develop (the tract) pursuant to the
height variance which is the subject of this action...."
The developer, or subsequent developer, "shall have the
3
FILE NO.: Z -3410-C (Cent.)
right to fully develop (the tract) within the restrictions
and requirements of the existing or subsequently established
and applicable zoning classifications, in which event (a
developer) shall not be required to comply with the terms
and conditions (of the judgment)."
Proposed signage for the hotel must be specified. The
location, size, and type of proposed signs need to be
indicated.
The proposed lighting of the site must be specified.
Times for swimming pool operation, garbage pick-up, and
parking lot cleaning need to be specified.
Hours during which construction activity on the site and for
the hotel are not to take place need to be set.
E. ANALYSIS•
The project narrative states that the design of the site
"closely followed the guidelines set forth in the judgment".
The judgment required a 165 foot setback from the west
property line; the proposed building is,185 feet. The
judgment required a maximum height of 93 feet or 8 stories;
the proposed building is 60 feet high with 6 stories, with
the first floor elevation lowered to 468 feet MSL, or 16
feet lower than the ground level of the residential lot
immediately to the west of the south end of the building.
The ground level parking was to be no higher than an
elevation of 486 feet MSL; the proposed parking is no higher
than 474 feet at its highest point, dropping to 461 feet MSL
at its north end. The buffer was to be 43 feet wide,
reduced to 25 feet wide at the south end; the proposed
buffer is 50 feet (±). The proposed hotel is on ground that
is currently zoned C-3. A hotel is allowed in the C-3 zone;
however, the C-3 zone restricts the height of buildings to
35 feet. The required parking for the hotel is on the 0-3
zoned part of the property. To deal with achieving a
consistent zoning for the site, as well as to deal with the
height variance, a rezoning to a PCD was chosen.
Pursuant to the consent judgment, the judgment was
applicable only to the proposal to build a specific office
building for which the Hoard of Adjustments had granted a
variance. It was not applicable if a new proposal arose.
It was specifically cited that, if a new development was
proposed, it could be developed according to the
requirements of any new zoning district guidelines for which
the property were subsequently zoned. The proposed
development is a new proposal, and the request is to re -zone
the property to PCD, which will have its own requirements
4
FILE NO.: Z -3410-C (Cont_)
for setback, height, etc. The consent judgment, therefore,
is apparently not applicable. The applicant has, though,
attempted to adhere to the guidelines agreed to in the
consent judgment "to minimize additional conflict and
confusion".
The proposal for which a consent judgment was entered into
by the previous developer and the residential neighbors was
for an office building. The current proposal is for a
hotel. The formerly agreed -to use is, supposedly, an 8-5,
5 -days per week activity. A hotel is a 24-hour, 7 -days per
week use. The hotel which is proposed, however, is a
limited service hotel which has no restaurant or convention
facilities. Specifically, the hotel which is proposed to be
developed is a Hampton Inn. This hotel, and these types of
hotels, cater to the traveling business person, and activity
around such hotels is not that inconsistent with activity
around an office building. The developer has "chosen the
most removed building placement possible to minimize visual
impact on the neighbors". Further, the developer has
located "the entry area and trash enclosure ... as far from
the residences as possible to minimize any disturbance from
activity".
Because the hotel has no restaurant or convention
facilities, the proposed parking of 162 space is considered
adequate.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PCD request, subject to:
1) establishing signage and lighting provision; and 2)
setting the hours during which the swimming pool can be
used, trash service pick-up can be done, parking lot
cleaning operations can be undertaken, and construction can
be carried on.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(AUGUST 18, 1994)
Mr. Robert Brown, representing the project engineering firm, was
present. Staff presented the project and the proposed PCD site
plan. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Brown the comments
contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Brown indicated that he
would be completing the required exhibits and furnishing them to
staff. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission
for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff presented the request. Mr.
Consultants, Inc., represented the
the Commission the proposal.
5
(SEPTEMBER 6, 1994)
Robert Brown, with Development
applicant, and outlined for
FILE NO.: Z -3410-C (Cont.)
Mr. Brown submitted a list of proposed development and operations
restrictions. This list proposed that the signage be limited to
one monument sign meeting the Overlay standards at the Hardin Rd.
entry drive, and one 24 square foot, 6 foot high, directional
sign at the access drive on Financial Center Parkway. The list
proposed that site lighting for the parking area be a maximum of
25 feet in height, with directional fixtures to limit bleedover.
The list proposed that the swimming pool operation be limited to
8:00 AM to 10:00 PM; and, that trash pick-up, deliveries, and
parking lot cleaning be limited to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. The list
proposed that construction activity be limited to 7:00 AM to 7:00
PM, with no work on Sundays. Mr. Brown reviewed the proposed
buffers along the west property line, and outlined the rationale
for the siting of the building and the parking lot grade in
relation to the 1984 Consent Judgment agreed -to by the abutting
residential property owners to the west.
There was an inquiry from the Commission regarding whether there
had been a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed
development. Mr. Brown responded that both'Mr. Doyle Daniel,
president of the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, and Mr. Ken
Davis, Secretary -Treasurer of the Association, had come by his
office and had reviewed plans, but that no meeting had been
scheduled. The Neighborhood Association representatives had
indicated that the neighborhood was opposed to the proposed
commercial development, and that a discussion on particular
limitations would not be productive.
Mr. Kenneth Davis, Secretary -Treasurer of the Birchwood
Neighborhood Association, spoke in'opposition to the proposed
PCD. He said that the Association had voted 100% to opposed the
rezoning; that it was inconsistent with the Land Use Plan; and
that it would adversely affect the -residential neighborhood to
the west. He said that the Land Use Plan provides for an office
zone buffer abutting the residential neighborhood, and that the
hotel and its parking lot do not meet the requirement for the
needed buffer. The hotel, he continued, would be 6 stories in
height, and would destroy the privacy of the backyards of at
least 10 homes. He complained that the PCD process is being
abused, in that it allows developers to circumvent the
restrictions of the commercial zoning when'it suites their
interests; that the developers, when they can do what they want
to do in a particular zone, comply with the zoning and do not
pursue a PUD application. He questioned staff's motives in
bringing up the 1984 Consent Judgment, since, he admitted, it was
applicable only to the office development proposed at the time,
and suggested that staff had brought it up to justify the hotel
with its lesser height, equal or greater separation, and parking
lot with a lower elevation. He pointed out that the topographic
cross section provided by the developer was an east -west cross
6
FILE NO.: Z -3410-C (Cont.)
section at the mid -point of the development which shows the
parking lot and hotel being lower than the abutting property to
the west; he questioned the relationship of the parking lot and
hotel to the properties to the west at the northern end of the
development site.
Commissioner Willis related that, in the existing 0-3 zone which
abuts the residential area, the building height could be 60 feet,
and that office uses are not necessarily limited to 8:00 - 5:00.
In fact, he said, many of the office in the Financial Center
complex are 24-hour, 7 days per week operations.
Mr. Davis replied that the neighborhood would take its chances
with an office development; that the 0-3 zone needed to remain in
place as a buffer.
Staff, responding to Mr. Davis' complaint that staff had brought
up the 1984 lawsuit in order to justify the hotel development's
siting of the hotel and parking lot. Staff indicated that staff
had received a number of Faxes from a representative of the
neighborhood in which the 1984 Consent Judgment had been cited,
indicating that its terms would be enforced. Staff reported that
neighbors who had been plaintiffs in the 1984 lawsuit had come to
the Neighborhoods and Planning office to review the application
and brought the terms of the lawsuit to staff's attention. Staff
indicated that the 1984 lawsuit was dealt with in the write-up
because the neighborhood had brought it to staff's attention in
the first place, and to point out that the terms were not
applicable to the current development.
Mr. Floyd Boyd, a resident of the `residential neighborhood to the
west, spoke in opposition to the proposed development. He said
that the City seeks citizen input into the planning decision-
making process, and, in these case -of the Birchwood Neighborhood,
the input of the citizens is being totally ignored. He said that
in almost every rezoning case, the wishes of the neighborhood
have not been honored.
Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women voters of Pulaski
County, reported that the League was not in support of the
proposed development. She said that the 247hour, 7 days per week
aspect of a hotel was not compatible with the residential use
abutting the site.
Mr. Brown indicated that he wished to respond to several of the
concerns or assertions expressed by the neighborhood
representatives. He said that in conversations with Doyle
Daniel, president of the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, he
had been told that residents along Springwood Dr. who would be
directly affected by the development were taking independent
action in contacting an attorney and in contacting the City, and
that the Birchwood Neighborhood as an Association was not taking
7
FILE NO.: Z -3410-C (Cont.)
the position of opposition as was being purported by Mr. Davis.
Mr. Brown indicated that it was his understanding that staff had
had contact with Doyle Daniel regarding the issue.
Staff responded that a telephone message, followed by a letter,
had been received from Doyle Daniel indicating that he was not in
support of the Springwood Dr. neighbors' opposition to the
proposed PCD; that he would not be present to present their
opposition; and, that, as a result, he was submitting his
resignation as the Birchwood Neighborhood Association president.
Mr. Brown continued, saying that he had provided the information
requested to the identified neighborhood representative, and that
that person had not requested a neighborhood meeting. He said
that the developer proposes to provide the 50 foot buffer along
the west property line, which is in line with the normal
requirement for buffering of residential from commercial uses.
He reiterated that the proposed hotel is a limited service hotel,
with no conference facilities or restaurants; that a C-3 tract at
the corner of Hardin Rd. and Financial Center Parkway may have a
restaurant on it, but that the area is not included within the
proposed PCD and is currently zoned C-3. He pointed out that, on
the adopted Land Use Plan, the site is designated for MOC (mixed
office and commercial), and that, according to the Zoning
Ordinance, the PUD process is encouraged in areas with this
designation. He pointed out that, in the PUD process, very
specific limitations on uses and activities can be applied, and
these limitations produce very stringent limitations for a use
which can be very beneficial to the neighborhood. The
limitations, he added, on noise, sight, and visibility, and other
impacts that are very measurable are dealt with in the PCD. He
pointed out that the same building, as an office building, could
be placed on the 0-3 zoned tract, and be a lot closer to the
residential homes. As it is, with the buffering along the west
property line, the 175 foot separation between the western
boundary and the hotel, and the fact that the first floor level
of the hotel is substantially lower than the western property
line, the visual impact from or on the neighborhood will be very
limited. He related that, in an office building in an 0-3 zone,
up to 10% of the floor area can be used for accessory commercial
uses, and, in a sizable office building, a couple of 6,000 square
foot restaurants with a bar could be provided, with no
restrictions on hours of operation.
Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification on the parking lot
lighting and on the signage.
Mr. Brown replied that on the hand-out sheet presented to the
Commissioners, the signs were outlined as being 1 monument sign
with would conform to the Overlay requirements, and 1 directional
sign; the lighting was outlined as being directional fixtures on
25 foot high poles.
8
-FILE NO.: Z -3410-C (Cont.)
Commissioner Selz asked for clarification that there were to be
no other curb -cuts on Financial Center Parkway, to which Mr.
Brown responded that there would not be any others.
Commissioner Walker asked for clarification on the location of
the dumpster enclosure, and on the rationale for not placing the
swimming pool to the east of the building, with Mr. Brown
responding that the dumpster is located at the southeast corner
of the site, and that the area to the east of the building has
too much grade change for the swimming pool. Mr. Brown continued
that the pool area has been surrounded with a heavy planting of
trees and shrubs as a buffer, and indicated that something more
substantial, such as a masonry screen, could be provided.
Commissioner Walker asked for clarification that the same
relationship of the hotel site to the neighborhood to the west
exists all along the west property line, to which Mr. Brown
responded that the PCD site, as well as the residential lots
facing Springwood Dr., slope uniformly downward to the north, so
that the hotel site is substantially uniformly lower than the
home sites to the west.
Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification, with light standards
proposed to be 25 feet in height, on the portion of the light
standards which would be above the grade of the residential
properties to the west, to which Mr. Brown stated that, at 25
feet in height, at least a portion of the standard would be above
the grade along the west property line in most places.
Commissioner Oleson suggested lowering the light standards, to
which Mr. Wally Allen, one of the developers of the hotel,
responded that the maximum amount of a standard which could be
seen would probably be 5 feet, and that there is a need for
adequate lighting for security purposes.
Commissioner Walker suggested that the height of the pole is not
as much of a concern as the "cut-off" of the fixture chosen. He
explained that with a narrow enough cut-off, the light will be
directed downward, and will not be able to be seen from the
residential properties to the west.
Acting Assistant Directors of Neighborhoods and Planning Tim Polk
clarified to the Commissioners that the staff had recommended,
and always does recommend, that the applicant meet with the
neighborhood, but that the neighborhood could choose not to
participate in such a meeting.
Commissioner Chachere asked Mr. Brown if there had been any
change in the proposed height of the parking lot light standards,
to which Mr. Brown stated that the height would remain at 25
feet.
Commissioner Willis, however, indicated that he could not support
the 25 foot height. Mr. Brown, then, responded that the light
standards would be 20 foot in height.
V
FILE -NO,: z- 41 -C Cont.
Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification on the possibility of
adding a masonry screen along the western boundary of the
swimming pool. Mr. Brown replied that it could be provided, but
that, with the change in grade and the plantings, it would be
unlikely that it would provide additional buffering.
Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification on the size of the
trees and plants which would be provided. Mr. Brown indicated
that the trees would be approximately 8 to 10 feet and the plants
would be 3 to 4 feet in height, at planting.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the PCD, and the PCD,
as amended, was approved with the vote of 6 ayes, 2 nays, 0
absent, 2 abstentions (Putnam and Ball), and 1 open position.
10