Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3699-A Staff Analysis1. Meeting.Date: August 16, 1994 2. Case No.: Z-3699-A 3. Request: For HINSON OFFICE PARK -- SHORT -FORM PCD, an appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the PCD request 4. Location: South and west of the interseciton of Hinson Road and Hinson Loop Road 5. Owner A licant: John Rees 6. Existing Status: The land is vacant and undeveloped. The current zoning is 0-3, general office 7. Proposed Use: Mini -storage facility 8. Staff Recommendation: Denial 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial 10. Conditions or Issues Remaining to be Resolved: None 11. Right -of -Way Issues: None 12. Recommendation_ For Approval Failed With: A vote of 0 ayes, 8 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position 13. Objectors: Laurie Amrine, W. J. Walker, Robert A. Rosen, John W. Youngblood, Christine A. Donaldson, Mark and Margaret Smith, Leonard M. Sten, Lee Fortson, Mike Callahan, Ray and Cheri Hayes, Joe Groseclose, Burl C. Rotenberry, Michael E. Fussell, Patsy Ball, Garry Koettel, and Kathy Vining. 14. Neighborhood Contact Person/Others: The area is not within a designated neighborhood association. Mrs. Amrine and Mr. Walker, listed above as objectors, are spokespersons for the abutting neighborhoods. 15. Neighborhood Plan: Rodney Parham (2) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TITLED HINSON OFFICE PARK SHORT -FORM PCD (Z-3699-A), AND LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HINSON ROAD AND HINSON LOOP 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 0-3 to PCD. A parcel of land in Section 33, T-2-N, R-13-W, and located south and west of the intersection of Hinson Road and Hinson Loop Road, Little Rock, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of Hinson Road and Hinson Loop Road; thence S8905514111W along the center line of Hinson Road, 30.01; thence S00004'19"E along the west ROW line of Hinson Loop Road, 379.01; thence S89051141"W, 255.01to a POB; thence S00004'19"E, 295.0'; thence N89°55141"E, 71.51; thence S0000411911E, 240.01; thence S89°55141"W, 437.01; thence N00004'19"W, 599.01; thence N89055'41"E, 268.38'; thence S72019'12"E, 25.0' to a point on the arc of a curve to the left of the said curve having a radius of 50.0'; thence in a southeasterly direction along the arc of said curve to the left of the POB (said curve segment having a chord bearing and distance of S52029102"E, 92.431) and containing 5.33 acres, more or less. SECTION 2. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as presented to the Little Rock Planing Commission on July 26, 1994. SECTION 3. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for HINSON OFFICE PARK SHORT -FORM PCD is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval within the time specified by Chapter 36-454(d) of the Code of ❑rdinances. 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-3699-A NAME: HINSON OFFICE PARK -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: Approximately 500 feet south of Hinson Road and approximately 300 feet west of Hinson Loop Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: JOHN REES PAT MCGETRICK REES DEVELOPMENT MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 12115 Hinson Rd. 11225 Huron Lane, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-228 223-9900 AREA: 3.57 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: O-3 PROPOSED USES: Mini -storage facility PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD in order to construct a mini -storage facility on a "rear" lot in the proposed Hinson Office Park subdivision. The preliminary plat, to be reviewed as another item on the same agenda as the PCD item, proposes a 5-lot subdivision and a commercial street off Hinson Loop to provide access to the lots. The proposed PCD occupies a 3.37 acre lot at the south end of the cul-de-sac street. The proposed mini -storage facility involves the construction of 7 buildings with a total square footage of 58,050. The building coverage is 40% of the land area. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval of a PCD for a mini -storage facility in the Hinson Office Park development is requested. The proposal involves the construction of 7 buildings on a 3.37 acre lot. The buildings are typically 305 feet long, with 4 of the buildings being 30 feet wide, and the 2 remaining 305 foot long buildings being 25 feet wide. One additional building is to be a 40 foot wide by 155 foot long. B. EKISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. The topography rises from a low point along the east property line to a high FILE NO-: Z-3699-A (Continued) point at the southwest corner of the tract; the rise in elevation is over 40 feet in 500 feet. The present zoning of the site is 0-3, with the remainder of the 0-3 district lying to the north and northeast. To the east is a small R-2 area and a small PCD. To the south is an MF-12 district. To the west is a PRD, along the southern portion of the west property line, and an 0-2 area, along the northern portion of the west property line. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Little Rock Municipal Water Works comments that a water main extension and fire hydrants will be required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require additional easements. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review reports that the a 6' high opaque screen, either a "good neighbor" fence or dense evergreen plantings, will be required adjacent to residential properties to the south, east, and west. Ordinance requirements for perimeter buffering and interior landscaping must be met. The 20 and 25 foot perimeter buffers indicates are in substantial conformance with the buffer requirements. Planning review reports that the site is in the Rodney Parham District, and the adopted Land Use Plan recommends office uses for the northern one-third of the site and multi -family for the southern two-thirds. A mini -storage facility, then, is in conflict with the Plan. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Issues pertaining to a potential office or residence use on the site have not been addressed, nor have the issue of lighting or signage. These need to be addressed. E. ANALYSIS• A mini -storage use is C-4 or C-3, with conditional use review, use in the Zoning Ordinance. The use, then, is inappropriate in this setting and in this clode proximity to residential uses. The use is in conflict with the adopted Land Use Plan which calls for office and multi -family uses on the site. FILE NO.: Z-3699-A Continued F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request. SUBDIVISION --COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994) Mr. John Rees, the developer, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, were present. Staff reported that the original submission had been a POD involving the area from Hinson Road south to the mini -storage site, with a mixture of offices and the mini -storage facility. The developer, in subsequent conversations with staff, felt that he would not have adequate flexibility in marketing the office portion of the development if he pursued the Planned Unit Development route. He had, therefore, amended his application to involve a preliminary plat for the entire site and a PCD for the one rear Lot 5 portion of the site. Staff reviewed with the applicant and his engineer the requirements for the new plans which were needed. The Committee reviewed the plans which had been submitted, then forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 14, 1994) Staff reported that a letter had been received from the applicant asking that the hearing on the item be deferred until the June 28, 1994 Commission meeting. The item was included in the Consent Agenda for deferral, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter, dated June 28, 1994, in which a request for a 30-day deferral of the hearing of this issue was relayed. The requested deferral, staff indicated, would bring the issue back before the Planning Commission at its July 26, 1994 hearing. Staff asked that the request for deferral be placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral. Chairperson Chachere reported that there were a number of persons in attendance at the Commission meeting who had submitted registration cards and had indicated that they objected to the applicant's proposed development. Commissioner Oleson recalled that the applicant had asked for a deferral previously, and asked for an explanation of the reason for the second request for a deferral. 3 FILE NO.: Z-3699-A (Cont•inued) Staff indicated that the applicant, Mr. John Rees, had, at the June 14, 1994 Commission meeting, asked for a 2-week deferral, and that, during that 2-week period, had attempted to set a meeting with the then Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, Mr. Jim Lawson, to discuss staff's recommendation of denial of the application. Due to Mr. Lawson's transition to the position of Acting Assistant City Manager, Mr. Lawson had been unable to meet with Mr. Rees, and, after the announcement was made of Mr. Lawson's new position, Mr. Rees was told to discuss his application with Mr. Tim Polk, the current Acting Neighborhoods and Planning Director. This discussion was held on Monday, June 27, 1994, and a neighborhood meeting with concerned neighborhood residents had been held Monday evening. Mr. Rees, staff reported, had requested the second deferral in order for him to consider available options in response to staff and the neighborhood opposition, and to redesign the site. Mr. Rees concurred with the staff explanation. Chairperson Chachere, addressing those who opposed the application, asked if they were in opposition to the requested deferral. The response from the crowd was that they were, indeed, opposed to the deferral, so Ms. Chachere indicated that the item would remain on the regular agenda. Staff outlined the PCD request, and reported that, because the requested use was in conflict with the adopted Land Use Plan for the area, the staff recommendation was for denial. Mr. Rees reiterated that he was requesting a deferral of the issue; that he had decided, after meeting with staff and the neighbors to the west, to modify the site plan, and needed time to make the changes. He reported that he had asked the three abutting neighbors to the west to a meeting the previous evening, and that they had each attended. He reported that he had notified the president of the property owners' association of the condominiums to the south of the meeting, but that no one from the condominiums had attended. Mr. Rees stated that the mini -storage facility is needed in the area; that there are few if any vacancies in the existing facilities in the area. He stated that it is his desire to make whatever changes are feasible to accommodate the affected neighbors. He pointed out that the homes to the west were substantially higher in elevation than the PCD site, that a substantial cut would be required in the PCD site at the southwest corner of the site, and that the storage facility would be hidden behind a retaining wall. The area immediately abutting the west and south property lines would be left as an undisturbed area, and this area is heavily wooded. Additionally, evergreen shrubbery and landscape trees would be planted in the area. He stated that the lighting would be low level, and would be attached to the buildings; that the buildings would be approximately 12 feet high, so the lighting fixtures would be the 4 FILE NO.: Z-3699-A (Continued same height. Access to the site would be limited, and the hours of operation would be from 6:30 in the morning to 8:30 at night; that there would be a resident manager who would monitor the site and keep it picked up. Mr. Rees reminded the Commissioners and the objectors that, with the current 0-3 zoning in place, he could construct a 45 foot high office building with 50-60,000 square feet of leasable area, with parking for 200 cars. Cars could be in and out at all hours. If a tele-marketing organization leased the building, there could be activity all night. People could stand around outside smoking. Retaining the 0-3 zone, he said, was not a panacea. He said that, with the natural and augmented buffer, and with the change in grade, the neighbors would not be affected by the mini -storage facility, in fact, most would not even know it was there. He said that, with his own office just 50 yards away, he would be responsive to any problems brought to his attention by the neighbors. Chairperson Chachere asked for clarification on the number of neighbors who would be affected. Mr. Rees explained that there were 3 residences at the southwest corner of the property, and that there was a condominium development along the south property line. Commissioner Ball asked for verification of the number of square feet of mini -storage buildings proposed to be developed. Mr. Rees responded that he proposed to construct 85,000 square feet of buildings. Commissioner Wyrick asked for clarification of the plans for draining the site and of the status of the pond which is located on the site. Mr. Rees stated that the pond is man-made; that approval from the Corps of Engineers would be required to make the needed changes in the drainage, but that the approval is not anticipated to be a problem. Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, explained that the drainage would be from west to east. That the current drainage from the Pleasant Valley Living Center site bordering the proposed PCD site on the west would be intercepted and piped underground to the existing drainage ditch on the east. He explained that the plan to meet the Detention Ordinance requirements is to place a large pipe system underground to contain the stormwater, and to release it into the current ditch at a slow rate. In fact, he said, the release of stormwater from the proposed system would probably be slower than it is from the current pond. 5 FILE NO.: Z-3699-A (Continued Ms. Laurie Amrine, who identified herself as one of the residents in Rainwood Cove who would be directly affected by the proposed development, expressed her strong opposition to the proposal, and to the proposal to defer the hearing again. She confirmed that she and the other two affected residents from Rainwood Cove had attended Mr. Rees' meeting the previous evening, had reviewed the site drawings he had presented, but had notified him that there were no adjustments he could make in the plan which would make the use palatable to them. She said that the neighbors were unified in their opposition to the change in use to mini -storage. She presented to the Commission petitions she said contained 136 signatures of neighbors in opposition to the development. She presented a video showing the neighborhood, the site, and other mini -storage units which, she said, would be what Mr. Rees' development would look like, especially from above, which is the view she and her neighbors would be subjected to. Mr. Mike Callahan, who identified himself as an abutting property owner to Mr. Rees' development, said that he and his wife strongly oppose the change in use. He said that the development had the potential for increasing traffic on their street; that they would present an unappealing view from the rear of their home, changing the view from the natural woods to unappealing mini -storage buildings; and, that the change in use was out of context for the area. He expressed opposition because, he said, the lights from security lighting would be offensive. He said that the proposed development would effect stormwater run-off from the Rainwood Cove subdivision. He said that the proposed development would adversely affect his and other Rainwood Cove property owners' property values, and would destroy the quiet, secluded setting they now enjoy. Mr. Ray Hayes identified himself as living between Ms. Amerine and Mr. Callahan, and expressed his objection to the rezoning and to the deferral. He complained about the time and expense of objectors having to take -off work to attend the meetings, and stated that the company he and his wife work for had lost considerable income from their having to leave work to attend the Commission hearings. He concurred in the previous objectors' statements, and said that he opposed the change in use from office to mini -storage units because, whereas offices are generally closed when residents are home, the commercial use would be open on weekends. He then added that an additional concern was the potential for an increase in crime due to the storage units being located behind the homes. He was concerned that, if someone who is trying to break in to a unit is confronted, that person's escape route will be through his and other abutting property. Mr. Joe Grossclose identified himself as an owner of a condominium in the Pleasantwood condominium development to the south; that he and his wife own a 2-story unit which would be the closest residence to the proposed development. He said that he 6 FILE NO.: Z-3699-A (Continued objected to the development because mini -storage units are generally built cheaply, and he and his wife would have to look at an unappealing development. He reiterated the concerns contained in his letter sent to the Commissioners, and said that he had personal knowledge of the concerns expressed in the letter, except for the chopped -up body parts which he had only read about in the newspaper. He said that he and the other condominium owners had bought their homes trusting that the abutting property would be developed with 0-3 uses; that an abrupt change, such as is being proposed, is not in keeping with good planning practice; and, that the Commission must be convinced by Mr. Rees that a mini -storage development is both needed and that the proposed site is the only site in the area which is available for such a development. He expressed objection because of the way typical mini -storage facilities look; because they typically do not have sanitary facilities and users are know to use the toilet outside. He said the proposed use is a "bad idea". Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Grossclose if he had reviewed the proposed plan showing a solid face of the mini -storage building facing south towards the condominiums. Mr. Grossclose responded that looking down on a "sea of metal roofs" is not acceptable, and that the landscape buffer would not be effective. He stated that there was nothing the developer could do which would make the plan acceptable to him or to the others. Mr. Bury Rotenberry identified himself as a resident of the Rainwood Cove subdivision, and said that he "echoed" his neighbors' objections to the proposed development. He complained that he had not been notified of the meeting which Mr. Rees had held with the Rainwood Cove residents. Mr. Michael Fussell identified himself as a resident of the Pleasantwood condominiums, and stated that his home is as close, if not closer, to the proposed development as Mr. Grossclose's, and his view from his front door would be changed dramatically. He said that he, too, objected to the proposed development, and "echoed" the previous comments. He said that he and his neighbors enjoy the wooded surroundings with the birds and squirrels, that the development would affect their enjoyment of their homes, and that it would affect their property values. Whatever change is made in the plan would not affect his attitude towards the development. He, too, said that he had not been notified of the meeting Mr. Rees had held with the Rainwood Cove residents. Ms. Patsy Ball said that she had been a resident of the Pleasantwood condominiums since last year, and that she had been told by the real estate salesperson that the abutting property was zoned for quiet office. She objected to any change in zoning, and to the proposed use. She said that she had not been VA FILE Na_: Z-3699-A_ Continued notified of the meeting which Mr. Rees had held, and that she could have attended if an attempt had been made to contact her. Ms. Christine Donaldson identified herself as a resident of the Pleasantwood condominiums, and said that, from personal experience, resident managers of mini -storage facilities do not patrol and keep noise from occurring. She said she would look out from her second story home onto the mini -storage buildings, and that this would not be a pleasant view. Ms. Lee Fortson identified herself as a resident of the Pleasantwood condominiums, and said that she wanted to reiterate her objections expressed in her letter to the Commission. She said that she rents a mini -storage unit on Green Mountain Drive; that her unit, even though there is a resident manager on that site, was broken into recently; that, she believes, such facilities promote break-ins; and, that such facilities no not belong next to residential areas. Mr. Garry Koettel identified himself as a resident of Rainwood Cove. He said that he knew that, whatever Mr. Rees might do with the property, the woods would be affected. He said that his concern was that future owners would not maintain the buffers as promised by Mr. Rees. He said that his primary concern, though, is the devaluation in the value of his and other homes in the area; that buyers do not buy homes which are adjacent to incompatible uses. Ms. Kathy Vining identified herself as a resident of Rainwood Cove. She said that her concern was for the devaluation of homes in the Rainwood Cove subdivision by the continued bordering of the subdivision with commercial uses. She objected to the proposed mini -storage use. Mr. W. J. Walker identified himself as president of the Pleasantwood Property Owners' Association, and said that developers "promise the moon" to get their rezonings, then do not take care of the property after the fact. He said that the Property Owners' Association objects to the proposed development. Mr. Rees responded that he realized, after listening to the objections, that he was not going to be able to present a plan that would be acceptable to the neighbors, but that he wanted to proceed with development of a plan which would try to mitigate the effects on the neighbors. He said that he would develop a "nice, quiet, well -kept" facility. He pointed out that he had notified Mr. W. J. Walker, president of the condominium owners' association, of the meeting held with neighbors, and felt that it was Mr. Walker's responsibility to notify members bf the Association. He offered to change the location of the fence to provide the landscaping on the outside of the fence abutting the neighbors' property, if that would help the neighbors' acceptance of the development. 8 FILE NO.: Z-3699-A Continued Ms. Cheri Hayes identified herself as a property owner of Rainwood Cove which abuts the proposed development. She said that her home is a tri-level home, and that her deck would look out over the proposed development. The view, she said, would not be attractive. She said that she supported what the other objectors had said. Chairperson Chachere stated that the objectors' comments are part of the record. She then asked Mr. Rees if he is still interested in having his request for a deferral considered, or was he interested in having the amended plan voted on. Mr. Rees said that, from the comments made by the objectors, there is probably nothing he could do, even if he "gold-plated" the development, that would change the neighbors' minds. He said that the Commission might as well vote on the request. Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Rees if staff had made any suggestions of changes which he might consider making; specifically, Mr. Walker asked if Mr. Rees could consider increasing the buffer widths substantially and having the blank face of buildings, not only on the south, but also on the west perimeter, face outward. Mr. Rees responded that these types of changes were the type he had considered making during the time before the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Walker asked if the blank perimeter walls would be effective buffers, given the topography. Mr. McGetrick responded that from the upper levels of home to the west, the views would probably not be restricted by the buffers; that from the upper levels, the residents would look out over the top of the facility. Mr. Tim Polk, Acting Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, related that staff had discussed with Mr. Rees the various options regarding the increased buffer and turning the buildings so that there are no openings to the outside, but related that any such changes would not affect the staff recommendation of denial, since the issues is one of conflict with the Land Use Plan. Staff cautioned the Commission about voting on a plan that was so incomplete. Staff pointed out that only ideas for changes had been discussed to date, and that there was no plan that could be considered for approval. Mr. Rees then indicated that he wanted to seek the deferral to the July 26, 1994 hearing. 0 FILE NO.: Z-3699-A (Continued) Commissioner Walker cautioned Mr. Rees that his concern is for the effects on the neighbors, and that Mr. Rees must be successful in disguising the facility so that the neighbors are not affected by it. Ms. Cynthia Brown, a resident of Rainwood Cove, said that, because of the topography, Mr. Rees is not going to be able to disguise the facility; that the homes in Rainwood Cove are so much higher in elevation than the Mr. Rees' site, that the mini -storage units are going to be visible. She objected to the proposed re-zoining and to the deferral. A motion was made and seconded to grant the request for the deferral to the July 26, 1994 Planning Commission hearing. The motion carried with the vote of 6 ayes, 3 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994) Staff explained that the site had been redesigned to increase the natural and landscape buffer widths along the west and south perimeters of the site, and to face the buildings so that the backs, or blank walls, of the buildings face the west and south property lines. Staff reported that the developer had prepared a topographic cross section which shows the relationship to the site of the abutting homes which lie to the west. Staff mentioned, though, that, since the staff opposition to the development is based on the development's conflict with the Land Use Plan, the recommendation of denial is unchanged by the redesign of the site. Ron Newman, a member of the planning staff, reported on the land use plan issue involving the site. He related that the site, although zoned 0-3, is shown on the land use plan for multi- family development. The multi -family area is an extension of a larger area that encompasses the single-family subdivision to the west and the condominium development to the south. Mr. John Rees, the developer, presented his application. He reviewed the revised site plan and discussed the changes it represented. He presented the topographic cross section showing that the abutting homes to the west would be well above the facility in elevation. He presented photographs showing the existing trees along the south and west property lines, as well as photographs of a mature hedge of red top photinias as an example of the effect the proposed landscape buffer would provide as the buffer matures. He stated that the condominium residents would see only a blank concrete wall through heavy woods and landscaping. He reported that a number of the abutting property SII FILE NO.: Z-3699-A Continued owners support the development, including one property owner to the west and all the property owners to the east. He had a landscaper describe the plantings which were proposed, and the effectiveness of the screening the plants would provide. He assured the Commission that, since the mini -storage buildings would be so much lower in elevation than the homes to the west, and with the landscaping which is to be installed, the residents of those homes would not be able to see the buildings. Except for the fact that they would know the development were there, they would be unaffected by it, he said. He described the types of development which could take place under the zoning which is in place, and cited several of the types of uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance under the 0-3 category. He said that a 3-story office building could be built, and that, in such a case, the abutting property owners would be much more impacted. He contested the condominium owners' previous assertion that their views from their windows would be towards the development, and said that only one or two side windows face the north; that because of the separation of the condominiums and the proposed development, the effect would be minimal. He pointed out that, with the 30 foot buffer along the south property line, no condominium unit would be within 60 feet of the blank wall of a mini -storage building. He reported that there is a demand for mini -storage facilities in the area, and asserted that the mini - storage facility is needed. He presented a petition of persons who, he said, had related to him that they would use such a facility if it were available on the site. He said, though, that there is no available zoning in west Little Rock which would permit the construction of these types of amenities. He said that the traffic generated by a mini -storage facility is minimal, and said that the traffic generated by an office development would be many times as great. He said that he planned on painting the roofs of the buildings a green color. He said that there would be a 24-hour manager who would police the area and that access to the site would be gained by a card -key system. He said that he had visited neighbors of other mini -storage facilities in the Little Rock area, and, uniformly they had said that there are no problems with the mini -storage facilities being their neighbors. Me concluded by assuring the Commission that the development would be "first class"; that he would own and operate the facility, and that since his office is just yards away, he would be available to attend to any problems which the neighbors wished to discuss. Mrs. Laurie Amrine, identifying herself as a resident of an abutting home to the west, spoke in opposition to the mini - storage facility. She had those who were in opposition to the development and who were in the audience to stand. (A large number of persons stood.) She related that the neighbors were in total opposition to the proposed development. She said that the opposition was not so much a matter of whether the developer could effectively camouflage the development, but was more a 11 FILE NO.: Z-3699-A Continued matter of trying to deal with issues such as noise, increased traffic, possible improper storage of dangerous materials in mini -storage units, and crime, which, she maintained, is associated with these types of units. She quoted the statement from the previous minutes in which Mr. Rees admitted that there was very little that he could do, as far as aesthetics is concerned, to appease the neighbors. She was critical of the Commission's decision to grant Mr. Rees a deferral at the previous meeting in order for him to prepare an amended plan, since the neighborhood had been so solidly against the proposal, and the deferral required neighbors to take off another day's work. She questioned the advisability and validity of allowing developers to "drag out" the hearings on applications. Mr. Mike Fussell spoke in opposition to the proposal. He identified himself as a resident of the condominium project to the south. He said that the aesthetic considerations were not the primary reason for the neighbors' opposition. He rebutted Mr. Rees' assertion that there is a need for mini -storage facilities in the area, saying that the area mini -storage facilities have vacancies. On the other hand, he said, west Little Rock apartment complexes are full and more apartment developments are needed. An apartment development would be in conformance with the land use plan, he concluded. Mr. John Youngblood spoke in opposition to the proposal. He identified himself as a townhouse owner, however not now a townhouse resident, a past -president of the property owners' association, and currently the manager of the development. He said that those whom Mr. Rees says he wants to be a good neighbor to do not want him as a neighbor. He said that Mr. Rees does not understand the neighbors' needs when he said that the neighborhood "needs" the mini -storage facility. All residents of the area, he said, were in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Joe Groseclose, identifying himself as a resident of the condominium project and one who would be closest to the proposed development, spoke in opposition to the mini -storage facility. He said that his condominium would be just 30 feet from the wall of the mini -storage building. He reminded the Commissioners of their duties to maintain sound planning principles, and urged the Commission to refuse to overturn the previously implemented zoning of the site. Commissioners Putnam and McDaniel took exception to Mr. Groseclose's lecture on the responsibilities and duties of Planning Commissioners, and indicated that they knew their duties and took their responsibilities very seriously. The question was called and discussion ceased. The vote to approve the PCD failed with the vote of 0 ayes, 8 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 12