HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4249 Staff AnalysisNAME:
Hughes Street Office Park PUD
(Z-4249)
LOCATION: Southwest intersection of
Hughes and I-630
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER/APPLICANT:
Urban Developers, Inc. Steve Sharp
8545 Leesburg Pike Riddick Engineering Corp.
Vienna, Virginia 22180 1600 First Commercial Bldg.
Phone: (703) 556-9320 Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-9219
AREA: 11.6 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R -4"r "R-5"
PROPOSED USES: Offices
A. Site History
None.
B. Development Rationale
This proposal envisions the development of the site as
a low-rise office complex with residential
characteristics, which will be provided by the scale of
the buildings and the selection of materials and colors
to be used. The developers feel that the site is
favorable to office development due to its association
to the existing commercial uses and its visibility from
I-630. It was considered as a good transitional use
from the residential on the east to the commercial on
the west.
To create the residential flair, the developer plans to
use an extensive amount of brick to enhance the visual
quality of the structure. This will be complimented
with variations in the window treatment to provide
interest and identity. The project will possess an
architectural uniqueness that will blend with the
surrounding residential property. Even though
buildings 5 through 11 are three stories, the slope
across the site will permit access to the second floor
to be at grade level on the uphill side. This added
feature of the terrain reduces the impact of the
structures and should give it more of a residential
Huqhes Street Office Park PUD - Continued
appearance. Since approximately 50 percent of the
project will be utilized by the medical profession, a
surplus of parking is provided. Other owners
anticipated will include real estate brokers, insurance
agents and other professional businessmen. The common
areas will be placed under the control and management
of an association. The resale or leasing of units
would be handled by each owner, who will also be
charged an annual fee for maintenance and operation of
the project.
C. Proposal
1. The construction of a condominium office park with
173 units at a density of 15 units per acre.
2. Development will be as follows:
Typical unit size .... 1,000 gsf
Buildings two story .... 38,000 gsf
Buildings three story .... 132,000 gsf
Total .... 170,000 gsf
3. Parking:
Required . . . . . . . . . . 80,000 gsf
(6 spaces/doctor's office) .... 480 spaces
90,000 gsf (80% of 1 space/
400 gsf = 2/1,000 gsf) .... 180 spaces
Total
.... 660 spaces
Provided . . . . . . 80,000 gsf
(6 spaces/1,000 gsf) .... 480 spaces
90,000 gsf (5 spaces/1,000 gsf) .... 450 spaces
Total
4. Site Coverage:
930 spaces
Building •••••
Paving .... (375 sq.ft. per parking space)
Walks, landscape, buffer and grass .....
13%
69%
18%
Total 100%
Huqhes Street Office Park PUD - Continued
So Phasing
Plan:
No. of
Start
Completion
Phase
Buildinq
Units
Date
Date
—
I
4-7
52
Fall 84
Summer 85
II
8-10
63
Summer 85
Spring 86
III
1-3, 11
58
Spring 86
Winter 86
6. Landscaping will
be extensive
and should
comply
with ordinance requirements.
D. Engineering Comments
Request internal drainage plan.
E. Analysis
Staff is favorable to the project. It will be a less
intense development than the approximate 336
multifamily units that could currently be built on the
site. The applicant is commended for his thoroughness
in fulfilling the submission requirements, however,
elevations are still needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee reviewed the application. The applicant
submitted a revised survey and elevation. Staff reported
that conversations with the developer indicated a possible
alternate access to the west once the adjoining property is
developed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Members of the University Park
neighborhood were present. Spokespersons from the group
included: (1) Mr. Ralph White - who requested that some
measure be provided to shield his view of the parking lot,
since the entrance to the development is directly in front
of his home; (2) Mr. Theopolis Donahue - who requested that
he continue to be allowed access to the rear of his
property; (3) Ms. Erma Hart - who objected to the
development of the property as multifamily or office based
on the possible lowering of property values, increasing
traffic, change in safety factor of neighborhood, etc.
Hughes Street Office Park PUD - Continued
During the discussion, it was brought out that there may be
a portion of right-of-way that needs closing. The applicant
was asked to research this and close the right-of-way if
needed. Finally, a motion for approval was made based on
the following conditions:
1. The provision of an access easement to Mr. Donahue; and
2. The provision of a permanent screening area 4' from
level of parking lot consisting of cut, berm, wall,
plus landscaping and extending from entrance to south
'property line and 150' north.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and
3 absent.