Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4016-C Staff AnalysisMay 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - File No. 383 NAME: P & L Investment Company "PCD" (Z -4016-C) LOCATION: Northwest corner of Wanda Lane at I-30 Access Road DEVELOPER: BUILDER/ARCHITECT: Perry Gravitt Tim Hopper 714 Ringo Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-8284 AREA: 2 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C -3"/"R-2" to "PCD" PROPOSED USES: Office/Retail/Wholesale VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site History On March 26, the Commission reviewed a request to rezone this site from "R-2" Single Family to "0-3" Office use. Due to intense neighborhood opposition demonstrated by the submission of a petition with over 100 signatures, the Commission felt that the PUD process would provide a better vehicle for review. On previous attempts in 1983 and 1984 to rezone to commercial, the applications were denied and in 1984 an opposing petition from the neighborhood was also submitted. The reasons for opposition were stated as a fear of undesirable commercial uses. Staff favored office development on the site due to its proximity to the residential area. B. Development Objectives 1. To develop the area as multi use, office, retail and wholesale projects on two acres. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued C. Proposal 1. A mixed use development including: Mark Use Size Unit -No. A Office/Wholesale 7,405 SF 1 B Retail 2,928 SF 3 C Office 7,800 SF 8 TOTAL 18,123 SF 12 2. Construction will be prefabricated steel frame/roof masonry block walls on reinforced footing, and concrete expansion type flooring. D. Engineering Comments 1. Driveway near intersection of Wanda and access road should be eliminated because it is too close to the intersection. 2. Four -foot planting strip between sidewalk and parking area. Parking on southern portion of Wanda Lane doesn't conform. Landscape strip also required along frontage road. 3. A 3 -foot landscape strip required along fence on - the west property line if there is an access road along the west property line. E. Analysis The applicant should submit additional information as required by the PUD process. Plans for landscaping/screening are required plus some indication of time involved in the development of the property. This plan shows a 4 -foot privacy fence. A 6 -foot fence is required along with a 40 -foot buffer on the adjoining residential areas. The service drive on the western boundary of the property is only 15 feet wide. Will this afford fire trucks and service vehicles adequate room? The applicant is asked to define the wholesale use proposed. F. Staff Recommendation Staff reserves comment until further information is received. . 0 May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He was asked to submit a list of specific uses for the project and square footage so that parking requirements could be determined, talked to Water Works about a possible conflict between an easement and required landscaping, and clarified site plan by indicating a 6 -foot fence and buffer adjacent to residential area, showing landscaping and `drive areas. Water Works - Require a 10 -foot easement adjacent to the north right-of-way of the access road. Acreage and frontage charges will apply. If a larger than 2" connection is required, a tie-in between 6" and 8" mains in Wanda Lane will be required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. There was discussion relative to the necessity of Water Works' requirement of a 10 -foot easement that conflicted with - required landscaping. Mr. Dale Russom from Water Works' presented an explanation. After a question from the staff, the applicant stated a commitment to "C-3" type uses on Tracts A and B, and office unit on Tract C. A motion for approval was made subject to a commitment to the uses stated by the applicant and the 10 -foot easement. The motion passed by a -vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - File No. 383 NAME: LOCATION: DRVRMPRR! Perry Gravitt 714 Ringo Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-8284 AREA: 2 acres P & L Investment Company "PCD" (Z -4016-C) Northwest corner of Wanda Lane at I-30 Access Road BUILDER/ARCHITECT: Tim Hopper NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C -3"/"R-2" to "PCD" PROPOSED USES: Office/Retail/Wholesale VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site History On March 26, the Commission reviewed a request to rezone this site from "R-2" Single Family to "0-3" Office use. Due to intense neighborhood opposition demonstrated by the submission of a petition with over 100 signatures, the Commission felt that the PUD process would provide a better vehicle for review. On previous attempts in 1983 and 1984 to rezone to commercial, the applications were denied and in 1984 an opposing petition from the neighborhood was also submitted. The reasons for opposition were stated as a fear of undesirable commercial uses. Staff favored office development on the site due to its proximity to the residential area. B. Development Objectives 1. To develop the area as multi use, office, retail and wholesale projects on two acres. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued C. Proposal 1. A mixed use development including: Mark Use Size Unit No. A Office/Wholesale 7,405 SF 1 B Retail 2,928 SF 3 C Office 7,800 SF 8 TOTAL 18,123 SF 12 2. Construction will be prefabricated steel frame/roof masonry block walls on reinforced footing, and concrete expansion type.flooring. D. Engineering Comments 1. Driveway near intersection of Wanda and access road should be eliminated because it is too close to the intersection. 2. Four -foot planting strip between sidewalk and parking area. Parking on southern portion of Wanda Lane doesn't conform. Landscape strip also required along frontage road. 3. A 3 -foot landscape strip required along fence on the west property line if there is an access road along the west property line. E. Analysis The applicant should submit additional information as required by the PUD process. Plans for landscaping/screening are required plus some indication of time involved in the development of the property. This plan shows a 4 -foot privacy fence. A 6 -foot fence is required along with a 40 -foot buffer on the adjoining residential areas. The service drive on the western boundary of the property is only 15 feet wide. Will this afford fire trucks and service vehicles adequate room? The applicant is asked to define the wholesale use proposed. F. Staff Recommendation Staff reserves comment until further information is received. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He was asked to submit a list of specific uses for the project and square footage so that parking requirements could be determined, talked to Water Works about a possible conflict between an easement and required landscaping, and clarified site plan by indicating a 6 -foot fence and buffer adjacent to residential area, showing landscaping and drive areas. Water Works - Require a 10 -foot easement adjacent to the north right-of-way of the access road. Acreage and frontage charges will apply. If a larger than 2" connection is required, a tie-in between 6" and 8" mains in Wanda Lane will be required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. There was discussion relative to the necessity of Water Works' requirement of a 10 -foot easement that conflicted with required landscaping. Mr. Dale Russom from Water Works presented an explanation. After a question from the staff, the applicant stated a commitment to "C-3" type uses on Tracts A and B, and office unit on Tract C. A motion for approval was made subject to a commitment to the uses stated by the applicant and the 10 -foot easement. The motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. . EN March 26, 1985 Item No. 3 - Z -4016-B Owner: P & L Investment Company Applicant: Perry Gravitt Location: Wanda Lane, North of I-30 Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "0-3" Purpose: Office Size: .48 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South. - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1. The request is to rezone two vacant lots to "0-3" for a small scale office development. Tentative plans submitted to the staff indicate that the two lots in question will be combined with one of the "C-3" parcels to the south and developed with a single office - building. It appears that the design concept is to orient the office activity away from the residential neighborhood. In the past, efforts have been made to rezone the site to a,commercial classification because of the existing "C-3" which is somewhat misplaced at an entrance to a residential subdivision. The two lots under consideration have been vacant for a number of years, and it can be questioned whether there will ever be any residential development on them. Because of the existing situation, an office rezoning could be the most appropriate way of putting the.lots to use and buffering the residential area from the "C-3." The property abuts residential use on two sides and there are two residences across Wanda Lane. 2. The site is two typical residential lots that are vacant. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues. March 26, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse reviewing agencies at this reports some concern with comments received from the time. The traffic engineer the parking and access. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. In 1983, an application was filed to rezone the "C-3" tract and the two lots in question to "C-4." The request was denied by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. A petition with over 100 signatures was submitted opposed to the rezoning. Another request was made to rezone the two lots in question to "C-3" in 1984. The neighborhood was against the rezoning and presented a petition with 112 names. The Planning Commission voted down the rezoning request. With both applications, the staff recommended denial. 7. Staff's position is that an office classification is more suitable for the location and should have less of an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Staff is encouraged by the proposed development because of utilizing one of the "C-3" lots. It is highly recommended that the remaining "C-3" parcel be incorporated into the site plan and create one unified tract. This would remove the potential for an inappropriate "C-3" use at the corner and possibly eliminate the need for any curb cuts on Wanda Lane. With the proper setbacks and building design, this could be accomplished. Setbacks will be critical because of the property abutting residential lots on two sides. Because of this situation, staff recommends that the "0-1" district be utilized for this location. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of "0-3" and approval of "O-1." PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Perry Gravitt, was present. There were eight objectors present. Staff informed the Planning Commission that a petition with 100 names opposed to the request had been submitted prior to the meeting. Mr. Gravitt spoke first and said that he was surprised about the petition because there appeared to be no opposition generated in the meetings that he had with the neighborhood. He went on to say that an effort had been made to reach a compromise with the residents. Steven Cobb representing the neighborhood spoke and discussed the petition. He said that the March 26, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued residents had problems with the previous owner and the neighborhood still feared the possibility of an undesirable commercial use. Mr. Cobb said that there was some support for the proposed site plan. There was a long discussion about utilizing the "PCD" process for the site. D. Murray discussed the intersection of Wanda Lane and Frontage Road. She indicated that location had one of the highest rates of accidents in the City. A motion was then made to convert the request to a short -form "PCD" and to waive any additional filing fees. Mr. Gravitt agreed to amending the application to a "PCD." The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.