Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4249 Staff AnalysisJuly 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 NAME: 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-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 resident.ial 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 July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - 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. 2. 3. 4. The construction of a condominium office park with 173 units at a density of 15 units per acre. 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 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 Site Coverage: 930 spaces Building ..... Paving .... (375 sq.ft. per parking space) Walks, landscape, buffer and grass ..... 13% 69% 18% Total 100% July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued 5. 6. Phasing Plan: Phase I II III No. of Start Building Units Date Completion Date 4-7 52 Fall 84 Summer 85 8-10 63 Summer 85 Spring 86 1-3, 11 58 Spring 86 Winter 86 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 revived 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. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - 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.