Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4103-C Staff Analysis•October 26, 1992 Item No. 1 File No. Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Engineering Issues: Z -4103-B University Properties, Inc. and W.P.S. 1400 Block of South Garfield Lots 110-116, Broadmoor North O-3 From the off-street parking provisions of Section 36-507(b) to permit commercial parking and access drives on property zoned O-3. To provided needed parking for an existing commercial use to the east. Vacant Commercial Parking There were none to be reported. B. Staff Analysis: The property in question is zoned 0-3 and the proposal is to use a portion of the lots for commercial parking. The Zoning Ordinance states: When detached parking facilities or satellite parking lots are provided, they shall be located on property which is zoned to allow the principal use which this parking will serve or they must be approved by the Board of Adjustment. Parcels of land used as access to or from parking and/or loading areas or any land use shall conform to this requirement. The parking will serve a commercial use that fronts on South University and the spaces will be behind the building, in a 30 foot parking easement on six 03 lots. Access will be provided by a one way drive between the building and the parking spaces. 1 'October 26, 1992 . 1 (Cont. In 1988, a number of vacant lots within the Broadmoor North Subdivision were zoned to 0-3 for future office development. All the lots are platted for single family residential use_ and are still undeveloped. Allowing the proposed parking on a portion of the lots will not impact the occupied residential lots in the immediate vicinity because the spaces will be somewhat removed from the existing residences. Placing the additional spaces on the 0-3 land is the only option available because the C-3 property is completely developed with building and parking areas. Some landscaping needs to be provided and staff recommends that the applicant contact Bob Brown of the Planning staff about the requirements. (Staff would like to remind the owners that when the lots were rezoned, two conditions were included in the ordinance. The conditions are: I. A preliminary plat, with a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet, be approved by the Planning Commission. 2. A final plat be filed for the area along the southern portion of Garfield Drive with a cul-de-sac terminating Garfield at then end of the office lots. The conditions must be satisfied prior to any building permits being issued for the area.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 1992) The application was represented by Pete Hornibrook. There were no objectors. There was a brief discussion. A motion was made to approve the parking variance as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 2 February 23, 1988 Item No. A - Z -4103-A Owner: Applicant: University Properties, Inc., and Bill Lusk John L. Burnett Location: Broadmoor North Phase II (Northmoor, Charlotte and Garfield Drives) Request: Rezone from "R-2" and "0-2" to 110-311 Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Office 12.95 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Church, Office, and Commercial, Zoned "R-2, "R-5," and "0-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Church and Commercial, Zoned "k-2" and "C-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" and "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone 10.5 acres '(12.9 acres including the street right-of-way) in the Broadmoor North Subdivision from "R-2" and "0-2" to "0-3" for some type of office park development. No specific plans have been submitted, so it is unknown how the lots will be developed and/or marketed. Broadmoor North is located to the southwest of -the intersection of West 12th and University Avenue. There are a total of 45 lots included' in this request, and none of them have any direct relationship to either West 12th or University Avenue which is critical to an office area this size. Without access to a major street and having to utilize residential streets for traffic circulation, the proposed "0-3" rezoning is questionable. Also without the high visibility gained from having some frontage on a major street, the potential for this type of land use to work is marginal at best. Another factor that must be carefully considered when reviewing this request is the desirability of allowing a nonresidential rezoning to encroach into an established single family neighborhood. When selecting February 23, 1988 Item No. A - Continued a viable office site, there are some basic criteria that should be considered, and that does not appear to be the case with this request. 2. There are 45 lots and two streets, Garfield and Charlotte Drives, involved with this request. All the lots are vacant, and the site is relatively flat. The lots under consideration have frontage on either Garfield or Charlotte: 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. As of this writing, there have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies. 5. There is an apparent legal issue allied with this rezoning and that is the Bill of Assurance for Broadmoor North. The Bill of Assurance. restricts the land use to detached single family residences so it appears that the Bill of Assurance will have to be amended at some point, if the rezoning is granted. To amend the Bill of Assurance, it takes 70 percent of the property owners. Also, the Bill of Assurance requires that the grantor's, Winrock Development Company, approval must first be obtained before any amendment can be made as long as the grantor owns any lots or land in the subdivision. It is the staff's understanding that Winrock still owns several lots within the subdivision. 6. Originally, the area under consideration was part of the University Park Urban Renewal Plan which was in effect from 1964 to 1984 and expired in June 1984. The Urban Renewal Plan also restricted use of the land to detached single family units. The lots are now a part of the Broadmoor North Subdivision which was approved in the late 19701s. In October 1983, a rezoning request from "R-2" and "C-3" to "MF -12," "0-2," and "0-3" was filed for basically the same tract of land. The first application included approximately 12 acres and properties that have frontage on both West -12th and University Avenue. The issue was deferred several times, and the request which had been amended to -"0-2" for all the lots was finally heard by the Planning Commission in May and June of 1984. At each of the hearings, there were objectors from the area who expressed concerns with traffic, property values, and impacts on the residential neighborhood. After much debate a modified proposal was approved for 5.2 acres of "0-2," the existing zoning pattern. Winrock February 23, 1988 Item No. A - Continued Development Company was opposed to the 1984 rezoning request. 7. Staff's position is that the proposed "0-3" reclassification is inappropriate for the location and does not support the request. Some of the major issues have been presented in other sections, but there are a number of other concerns. The appropriateness of filing an application for nonresidential zoning on land that is restricted to detached single family use. - The request does not conform to the adopted Boyle Park Plan which shows single family residential for the lots. The possible encroachment of nonresidential uses into a viable single family neighborhood. - The request appears to be speculative in nature. Access is totally inadequate for the proposed rezoning, and the use of residential streets is undesirable. The proposal is contrary to good land use and planning because of various factors, and the "0-3" reclassification could have a very adverse impact on the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "0-3" rezoning as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-1-87) The applicant was represented by Pete Hornibrook. There was one objector in attendance. Staff reported to the Commission that the applicant submitted a written request for deferral, but it was received after the five working days as required by the Planning Commission Bylaws. There was some discussion about the request and the objector said that he was not opposed to deferring the rezoning. A motion was made to defer the request to the January 12, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. February 23, 1988 Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-12-88) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a written request for a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the February 23, 1988, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-23-88) The applicant, John Burnett, was present. There were no objectors. Gary Greeson, Planning Director, addressed the Commission and said that 110-2" would be more desirable for the "R-2" property north of the existing "0-2" and that the lots to the south should remain "R-2." Mr. Burnett then discussed the rezoning proposal on the property. He told the Commission that one reason for not wanting an "0-2" reclassification was the various utility easements and the inability to construct over them. Mr. Burnett said that "0-3" was more suitable for the proposed type of development and suggested that some type of condition restricting lot size could be made a part of the rezoning approval. The proposed condition would require the acreage in question to be replatted into 14,000 square foot lots the minimum site area for the "O-3" District. Mr. Burnett then went on to say that he had met with the one objector who attended the first public hearing and the resident indicated that the neighborhood was no longer concerned with an "0-3" development but rather with small housing units. There was some discussion about the traffic concerns, and Mr. Burnett said that he would be willing to cul-de-sac Garfield Drive at the end of the proposed off ice lots. Mike Batie of the Engineering staff said that a cul-de-sac was a reasonable solution to the problem. Mr. Burnett told the Commission that the area was a viable location for a small garden office park and there was a demand for one level office buildings in Little Rock. Additional comments were made about the differences in the "0-2" and "0-3" Districts including the permitted heights in the two zoning classifications. Stephens Giles of the City Attorney's Office said that requiring 14,000 square foot lots was a reasonable condition to attach to the rezoning approval. There was some discussion about the final plat and other issues. A motion was then offered which recommended approval of the "0-3" rezoning with the condition that a preliminary plat be filed with 14,000 square foot lots as the minimum lot size and then a final plat- be filed for the area along the southern portion of Garfield Drive with a cul-de-sac terminating Garfield Drive at the end of the office development. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 no, and 0 absent. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION RESCINDING THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION IN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OFFICE, SHOWROOM/WAREHOUSE TO BE LOCATED IN THE 1400 BLOCK OF SOUTH GARFIELD DRIVE (Z -4103-C) WHEREAS, an application was filed by United Properties with the Little Rock Planning Commission for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of an office, showroom/warehouse on the 110-3" zoned property located in the 1400 block of South Garfield Drive; and WHEREAS, the Little Rock Planning Commission, at its April 5, 1994 meeting, approved the application with certain conditions and restrictions; and WHEREAS, the Little Rock Board of Directors has determined that action to be inappropriate. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. The action of the Little Rock Planning Commission in approving an application for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of an office, showroom/warehouse to be located in the 1400 Block of South Garfield Drive is hereby rescinded. SECTION 2. Said conditional use permit application is hereby denied. SECTION 3. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. ADOPTED: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney APPROVED: Mayor 1. Meeting Date: June 7, 1994 2. Case No.: Z -4103-C 3. Reaue: Appeal of Planning Commission's action in approving a Conditional Use Permit allowing for the construction of an office, showroom/warehouse on an 0-3 zoned site 4. Location: 1400 Block of South Garfield Drive 5. Owner A licant: United Properties/James Williams & Warren Stephenson 6. Existing Status: vacant, 0-3 zoned, 1.4 acre tract 7. Pro used Use: 11,900 square foot office, showroom/warehouse for United Wholesale Florist 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Conditional Use Permit, with conditions 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval of the Conditional Use Permit, with conditions 10. Conditions or Issues Remaining to be Resolved: None 11. Right -of -Way Issues: A sidewalk is to be constructed on Garfield Drive and Garfield Drive is to be terminated in a cul-de-sac at the end of the 0-3 zoned property 12. Recommendation Forwarded With: A Planning Commission vote approving the Conditional Use Permit of 7 ayes, 2 noes and 2 absent 13. Objectors: Two neighborhood residents appeared at the March 22, 1994 Planning Commission in opposition. One of these later reversed her position. A petition and letters representing approximately 40 neighborhood residents in opposition had been received and presented to the Planning Commission. 14. Nei hborhood Plan: Boyle Park (10) 15. Neighborhood Contact Person Others: None FILE NO.: Z -41U3 - NAME• LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location United Properties - Conditional Use Permit 1400 Block of South Garfield Drive United Properties by James Williams A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a single story, 11,900 square foot office, showroom/warehouse on this 0-3 zoned, 1.4 acre site. The proposed occupant is United Wholesale Florist, Inc., a wholesaler of cut flowers and related floral merchandise. The site is located on the east side of the 1400 Block of South Garfield Drive; two blocks south of West 12th Street and one half block west of South University Avenue. 2. Compatibility with -Neighborhood This site is part of a 13 acre tract which was rezoned from R-2 and 0-2 to 0-3 in 1988. The area of 0-3 zoning is located between the commercial property on University Avenue and West 12th Street and the single family Broadmoor North neighborhood. The proposed office, showroom/warehouse occupies a tract on the eastern edge of the 0-3 zoning, adjacent to the C-3 property on University Avenue. There are other vacant 0-3 zoned lots between this site and the single family residential neighborhood. The proposed use appears to be compatible with the neighborhood of adjacent C-3 and 0-3 zoning, and is adequately separated from the residential neighborhood so as not to have a negative impact on the single family homes. 3. on -Site Drives and Parkincr The applicant proposes a total of 35 on-site parking spaces, two of which are designated as handicapped accessible. The number of on-site parking spaces proposed exceeds the ordinance requirement. All parking lot and driveway lighting must be placed so as to reflect away from the nearby residential district. FILE NO.: Z -4103-C Continued 4. Screening and Buffers Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. The landscape strip on the Garfield Drive side of the northern parking lot must be increased to a minimum of six feet. The dumpster or trash receptacle must be oriented away from the street side of the property and must be screened on at least three sides to a height of 8 feet. 5. City Engineer Comments Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply. Construct a sidewalk along Garfield Drive. 6. Utility Comments Southwestern Bell Telephone requires a 10 foot easement along the north, south and east perimeters. Little Rock Municipal Water Works states an acreage charge of $150.00 per acre applies in addition to the normal connection charge. The sewer main relocation must be approved by the Little Rock Wastewater Utility and completed prior to any construction over the existing main. 7. Analysis The proposal before the Planning Commission is a conditional usb permit to allow for the construction of an 11,900 square foot office, showroom/warehouse on an 0-3 zoned, 1.4 acre site. The proposed occupant is United Wholesale Florist, Inc., a wholesaler of cut flowers and related merchandise. The ordinance defines an office, showroom/warehouse as a facility for mixed use with the following characteristics: 1. A showroom for display of product line which does not include items for user purchase, except within C-3 General Commercial District. 2. A storage or warehouse facility which occupies not more than 60% of the gross floor area of the structure. 3. The principal office of the business 4. Sales to contractors or other businesses installing or delivering to consumer/user. The site is part of a 13 acre tract which was rezoned to 0-3 in 1988. The 0-3 zoning was approved conditioned upon a preliminary plat with a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet being approved by the Planning Commission and a final plat being filed for the area along the southern portion of Garfield Drive with a cul-de-sac terminating Garfield Drive at the end of the office development. K FILE NO.: Z -4103-C (Continued The preliminary plat has been approved. The final plat for the southern lots and the cul-de-sac must be accomplished as a component of this conditional use permit. Although one 0-3 zoned lot separates this site from the nearest single family residential property, the developer should be sensitive to the residential neighborhood in the site design. The loading docks and dumpster are to be located on the southern end of the property which is separated from the nearest single family home by one 120 foot deep lot. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this application subject to: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 2. Compliance with City Engineer and Utility Comments 3. Compliance with all provisions established in Ordinance No. 15,447 which rezoned this property to 0-3 on March 15, 1988. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) James Williams and Randy Ashmore were present representing the application. Staff presented the issue and noted several items pertaining to the application. The applicant was advised to provide greater details on the percentage of square footage to be devoted to office, showroom and warehouse. Mr. Williams responded that the exact percentages were not worked out but that the ratio would comply with ordinance standards. In response to a question from staff, Mr. Williams stated that the showroom was designed to display items for wholesale customers and that there would be no retail sales. Staff asked the applicant to also provide details on proposed signage, the height and design of the security fence, the dumpster location and screening, and the parking lot and driveway lighting. Mr. Williams responded that this information would be provided. A discussion then followed concerning the provisions of the 1988 rezoning. The applicant stated that work was progressing on complying with all conditions of the Zoning Ordinance. The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. 3 FILE NO.: Z -4103-C Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) The applicant, James Williams, was present. There were two objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, presented the item and informed the Commission that a petition and several letters of opposition had been received. James William addressed the Commission and gave a brief description of the proposed office, showroom/warehouse. Mr. Williams stated that the building would be roughly divided as follows: 20% office, 35% showroom and 45% warehouse. Mr. Williams continued by stating that it was United Wholesale Florist's intent to be a good neighbor and that his building would, in fact, help screen the neighborhood from the more intense commercial uses on University Avenue. Jody Williams, of 1607 Charlotte, spoke in opposition to the proposal. Ms. Williams presented a video showing the neighborhood as well as United Wholesale Florist's current location. She stated that the proposed use would have a negative impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood and would be better located elsewhere. Ms. Williams made reference to the petition and letters of opposition from the neighborhood which had been presented to the Commission. She concluded by stating that the proposed office, showroom/warehouse was too intense of a use for this location, that the proposed use would not serve the neighborhood residents and that the services offered by the proposed business could not even be used by the residents. Carla Terry, of 1811 Garfield Court, next addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed use. Ms. Terry stated that she had concerns about truck traffic going through the residential neighborhood to get to the business. She stated that the proposed use was an industrial use and that it would devalue homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Wyrick asked staff what route traffic would take to reach the business. Dana Carney pointed out the access route from 12th Street to Cleveland and Northmoor to reach Garfield Court. It was also pointed out that there are two access drives coming off of University Avenue. Commissioner Walker asked if there was a final plat for these lots. Pete Hornibrook of Rector Phillips Morse advised the Commission that a final plat had been filed for these lots on Garfield. At Commissioner Walker's request, staff reviewed the conditions_. of the 1988 Rezoning Ordinance. 4 FILE NO.: Z -4103-C ----(-Continued) Commissioner Putnam asked the applicant to describe the proposed building. Mr. Hornibrook stated that the building would be of masonry construction and would be an improvement over the current use of the property. James Williams stated that the proposed use is located in an office park location. He stated that the land is currently zoned 0-3, not residential. Mr. Williams continued by stating that the site was chosen due its distance from the adjacent neighborhood. He pointed out that the proposed site is on the east side of the 0-3, office development and will provide a screen from the commercial uses on University Avenue. A motion was then made to approve the application. The vote was 5 ayes, 3 noes, and 3 absent. Since the item failed to receive 6 votes, either for or against, it was automatically deferred to the May 3, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994) The applicant, James Williams, was present. There were two objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, presented the item and a staff recommendation of approval. Joe While, engineer for the project, addressed the Commission. Mr. White presented a map showing the 0-3 zoned property and the location of the proposed office, showroom/warehouse. Mr. White also presented an aerial photo of the site showing its relationship to other commercial development in the area. After presenting photographs of the site, Mr. White showed on a plat of the area that the traffic to the proposed development would not go through the residential neighborhood. James Williams, the applicant, next addressed the Commission. Mr. Williams presented drawings of the proposed building location and its relationship to other 0-3 zoned lots. He stated that the nearest residential lot was over 200 feet south of the building. Mr. Williams showed the commissioners proposed elevations of the building as well as drawings comparing the proposed building to United Wholesale Florist's current location. Finally, Mr. Williams gave a brief history of United Wholesale Florist. He stated that they have been good neighbors at their current location and are planning to continue that relationship with their new neighbors. Pete Hornibrook, of Rector Phillips Morse, next addressed the Commission. He stated that he had met with neighbors and explained the proposal. Mr. Hornibrook stated that he felt some 5 FILE NO.: Z -4103-C (Continued concerns had been addressed. He then presented a letter from Unity Baptist Church stating that the church was not opposed to the proposed office, showroom/warehouse. Mr. Hornibrook concluded by stating that other sites were considered but none worked as well as this proposed location. Paul Green, of 1311 South Cleveland Street, addressed the Commission in favor of the proposal. He stated that he felt the proposed wholesale florist would be better than many other alternatives which could be constructed on the site. Jody Williams, of 1607 Charlotte, addressed the Commission in opposition to the application. Ms. Williams presented a video of the neighborhood showing the traffic routes to the proposed office, showroom/warehouse. She stated that traffic to the business would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Ms. Williams continued by stating that the proposed use is an industrial use and will not serve neighborhood residents. She stated that other locations are more appropriate for this type of industrial use. Ms. Williams stated that although there would be a cul-de-sac on Garfield Street, there would be no protection for the residents on Charlotte from any commercial/industrial traffic. Ms. Williams concluded by stating that the Broadmoor North Bill of Assurance was never amended to allow this office zoning. She stated that she bought her home in this neighborhood never thinking that office/commercial development would take place. Commissioner Chachere asked what effect the Bill of Assurance issue would have on this application. Stephen Giles, of the City Attorney's Office, responded that he could not speak to that issue and that the City does not enforce Bills of Assurance. Carla Terry, of 1811 Garfield, next addressed the Commission. She stated that she was for the proposed development if proper buffering and landscaping is required. Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Hornibrook if traffic to the proposed office development could be restricted from Charlotte. Mr. Hornibrook responded that signs will be installed to direct traffic away from the residential neighborhood. After further discussion, a motion was made to approve the application as recommended by staff with one additional condition. The added condition is that the building is to be of masonry construction, designed as presented at the Planning Commission meeting. The vote was 7 ayes, 2 noes, and 2 absent. 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION RESCINDING THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION IN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OFFICE, SHOWROOM/WAREHOUSE TO BE LOCATED IN THE 1400 BLOCK OF SOUTH GARFIELD DRIVE (Z -4103-C) WHEREAS, an application was filed by United Properties with the Little Rock Planning Commission for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of an office, showroom/warehouse on the 110-3" zoned property located in the 1400 block of South Garfield Drive; and WHEREAS, the Little Rock Planning Commission, at its April 5, 1994 meeting, approved the application with certain conditions and restrictions; and WHEREAS, the Little Rock Board of Directors has determined that action to be inappropriate. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. The action of the Little Rock Planning Commission in approving an application for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of an office, showroom/warehouse to be located in the 1400 Block of South Garfield Drive is hereby rescinded. SECTION 2. Said conditional use permit application is hereby denied. SECTION 3. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. ADOPTED: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney APPROVED: Mayor April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z -410 --C NAME: United Properties - Conditional Use Permit LOCA'T'ION: 1400 Block of South Garfield Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: United Properties by James Williams PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a single story, 11,900 square foot office, showroom/warehouse on this 0-3 zoned, 1.4 acre site. The proposed occupant is United Wholesale Florist, Inc., a wholesaler of cut flowers and related floral merchandise. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. 2. Site Location The site is located on the east side of the 1400 Block of South Garfield Drive; two blocks south of West 12th Street and one half block west of South University Avenue. Com atibility with Neighborhood This site is part of a 13 acre tract which was rezoned from R-2 and 0-2 to 0-3 in 1988. The area of 0-3 zoning is located between the commercial property on University Avenue and West 12th Street and the single family Broadmoor North neighborhood. The proposed office, showroom/warehouse occupies a tract on the eastern edge of the 0-3 zoning, adjacent to the C-3 property on University Avenue. There are other vacant 0-3 zoned lots between this site and the single family residential neighborhood. The proposed use appears to be compatible with the neighborhood of adjacent C-3 and 0-3 zoning, and is adequately separated from the residential neighborhood so as not to have a negative impact on the single family homes. 3. On -Site Drives and Parkin The applicant proposes a total of 35 on-site parking spaces, two of which are designated as handicapped accessible. The number of on-site parking spaces proposed exceeds the April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) _ FILE Na.: Z-410 -C ordinance requirement. All parking lot and driveway lighting must be placed so as to reflect away from the nearby residential district. 4. Screening and Buffers Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. The landscape strip on the Garfield Drive side of the northern parking lot must be increased to a minimum of six feet. The dumpster or trash receptacle must be oriented away from the street side of the property and must be screened on at least three sides to a height of 8 feet. 5. City Engineer comments Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply. Construct a sidewalk along Garfield Drive. 6. utility Comments Southwestern Bell Telephone requires a 10 foot easement along the north, south and east perimeters. Little Rock Municipal Water Works states an acreage charge of $150.00 per acre applies in addition to the normal connection charge. The sewer main relocation must be approved by the Little Rock Wastewater Utility and completed prior to any construction over the existing main. 7. Analysis The proposal before the Planning Commission is a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of an 11,900 square foot office, showroom/warehouse on an 0-3 zoned, 1.4 acre site. The proposed occupant is United Wholesale Florist, Inc., a wholesaler of cut flowers and related merchandise. The ordinance defines an office, showroom/warehouse as a facility for mixed use with the following characteristics: 1. A showroom for display of product line which does not include items for user purchase, except within C-3 General Commercial District. 2. A storage or warehouse facility which occupies not more than 60% of the gross floor area of the structure. 3. The principal office of the business 4. Sales to contractors or other businesses installing or delivering to consumer/user. The site is part of a 13 acre tract which was rezoned to 0-3 in 1988. The 0-3 zoning was approved conditioned upon a preliminary plat with a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet being approved by the Planning Commission and a final 2 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: D Continued FILE NO.: Z -4143-C plat being filed for the area along the southern portion of Garfield Drive with a cul-de-sac terminating Garfield Drive at the end of the office development. The preliminary plat has been approved. The final plat for 'the southern lots and the cul-de-sac must be accomplished as a component of this conditional use permit. Although one 0-3 zoned lot separates this site from the nearest single family residential property, the developer should be sensitive to the residential neighborhood in the site design. The loading docks and dumpster are to be located on the southern end of the property which is separated from the nearest single family home by one 120 foot deep lot. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this application subject to: 1, Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 2. Compliance with City Engineer and Utility Comments 3. Compliance with all provisions established in Ordinance No. 15,447 which rezoned this property to 0-3 on March 15, 1988. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) James Williams and Randy Ashmore were present representing the application. Staff presented the issue and noted several items pertaining to the application. The applicant was advised to provide greater details on the percentage of square footage to be devoted to office, showroom and warehouse. Mr. Williams responded that the exact percentages were not worked out but that the ratio would comply with ordinance standards. In response to a question from staff, Mr. Williams stated that the showroom was designed to display items for wholesale customers and that there would be no retail sales. Staff asked the applicant to also provide details on proposed signage, the height and design of the security fence, the dumpster location and screening, and the parking lot and driveway lighting. Mr. Williams responded that this information would be provided. A discussion then followed concerning the provisions of the 1988 rezoning. The applicant stated that work was progressing on complying with all conditions of the zoning Ordinance. 3 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: D(Continued) FILE NO.: Z-410 -C The Committee then forwarded this item to the full commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) The applicant, James Williams, was present. There were two objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, presented the item and informed the Commission that a petition and several letters of opposition had been received. James William addressed the Commission and gave a brief description of the proposed office, showroom/warehouse. Mr. Williams stated that the building would be roughly divided as follows: 20% office, 35% showroom and 45% warehouse. Mr. Williams continued by stating that it was United Wholesale Florist's intent to be a good neighbor and that his building would, in fact, help screen the neighborhood from the more intense commercial uses on University Avenue. Jody Williams, of 1607 Charlotte, spoke in opposition to the proposal. Ms. Williams. presented a video showing the neighborhood as well as United Wholesale Florist's current location. She stated that the proposed use would have a negative impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood and would be better located elsewhere. Ms. Williams made reference to the petition and letters of opposition from the neighborhood which had been presented to the Commission. She concluded by stating that the proposed office, showroom/warehouse was too intense of a use for this location, that the proposed use would not serve the neighborhood residents and that the services offered by the proposed business could not even be used by the residents. Carla Terry, of 1811 Garfield Court, next addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed use. Ms. Terry stated that she had concerns about truck traffic going through the residential neighborhood to get to the business. She stated that the proposed use was an industrial use and that it would devalue homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Wyrick asked staff what route traffic would take to reach the business. Dana Carney pointed out the access route from 12th Street to Cleveland and Northmoor to reach Garfield Court. It was also pointed out that there are two access drives coming off of University Avenue. Commissioner Walker asked if there was a final plat for these lots. 4 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4103 - Pete Hornibrook of Rector Phillips Morse advised the Commission that a final plat had been filed for these lots on Garfield. At Commissioner Walker's request, staff reviewed the conditions of the 1988 Rezoning Ordinance. Commissioner Putnam asked the applicant to describe the proposed building. Mr. Hornibrook stated that the building would be of masonry construction and would be an improvement over the current use of the property. James Williams stated that the proposed use is located in an office park location. He stated that the land is currently zoned 0-3, not residential. Mr. Williams continued by stating that the site was chosen due its distance from the adjacent neighborhood. He pointed out that the proposed site is on the east side of the 0-3, office development and will provide a screen from the commercial uses on University Avenue. A motion was then made to approve the application. The vote was 5 ayes, 3 noes, and 3 absent. Since the item failed to receive 6 votes, either for or against, it was automatically deferred to the May 3, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994) The applicant, James Williams, was present. There were two objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, presented the item and a staff recommendation of approval. Joe White, engineer for the project, addressed the Commission. Mr. White presented a map showing the 0-3 zoned property and the location of the proposed office, showroom/warehouse. Mr. White also presented an aerial photo of the site showing its relationship to other commercial development in the area. After presenting photographs of the site, Mr. White showed on a plat of the area that the traffic to the proposed development would not go through the residential neighborhood. James Williams, the applicant, next addressed the Commission. Mr. Williams presented drawings of the proposed building location and its relationship to other 0-3 zoned lots. He stated that the nearest residential lot was over 200 feet south of the building. Mr. Williams showed the commissioners proposed elevations of the building as well as drawings comparing the proposed building to United Wholesale Florist's current location. Finally, Mr. Williams gave a brief history of United Wholesale Florist. He stated that 5 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO.: D Continued FILE NO.: Z -4103 - they have been good neighbors at their current location and are planning to continue that relationship with their new neighbors. Pete Hornibrook, of Rector Phillips Morse, next addressed the Commission. He stated that he had met with neighbors and explained the proposal. Mr. Hornibrook stated that he felt some concerns had been addressed. He then presented a letter from Unity Baptist Church stating that the church was not opposed to the proposed office, showroom/warehouse. Mr. Hornibrook concluded by stating that other sites were considered but none worked as well as this proposed location. Paul Green, of 1311 South Cleveland Street, addressed the Commission in favor of the proposal. He stated that he felt the proposed wholesale florist would be better than many other alternatives which could be constructed on the site. Jody Williams, of 1607 Charlotte, addressed the Commission in opposition to the application. Ms. Williams presented a video of the neighborhood showing the traffic routes to the proposed office, showroom/warehouse. She stated that traffic to the business would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Ms. Williams continued by stating that the proposed use is an industrial use and will not serve neighborhood residents. She stated that other locations are more appropriate for this type of industrial use. Ms. Williams stated that although there would be a cul-de-sac on Garfield Street, there would be no protection for the residents on Charlotte from any commercial/industrial traffic. Ms. Williams concluded by stating that the Broadmoor North Bill of Assurance was never amended to allow this office zoning. She stated that she bought her home in this neighborhood never thinking that office/commercial development would take place. Commissioner Chachere asked what effect the Bill of Assurance issue would have on this application. Stephen Giles, of the City Attorney's Office, responded that he could not speak to that issue and that the City does not enforce Bills of Assurance. Carla Terry, of 1811 Garfield, next addressed the Commission. She stated that she was for the proposed development if proper buffering and landscaping is required. Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Hornibrook if traffic to the proposed office development could be restricted from Charlotte. Mr. Hornibrook responded that signs will be installed to direct traffic away from the residential neighborhood. 11 April 5, 1994 ITEM NO • D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4103-C After further discussion, a motion was made to approve the application as recommended by staff with one additional condition. The added condition is that the building is to be of masonry construction, designed as presented at the Planning Commission meeting. The vote was 7 ayes, 2 noes, and 2 absent. 7