Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4249-A Staff AnalysisMarch 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO-: Z -4249 - NAME: FREEWAY BUSINESS PARK -- LONG -FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: South of I-630, beginning approximately 0.1 mile east of Rodney Parham Rd. & extending east to Hughes St. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: FREEWAY INVESTMENT COMPANY MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 620 W. 3rd. St., Suite 210 11225 Huron Lane, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 722111' 374-5417 223-9900 AREA: 12.8 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 1000 ZONING: C-3 to POD PROPOSED USES: Offices and Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 CENSUS TRACT: 21.01 VARIANCES REMESTED: None 1. Waiver from the Master Street Plan and Subdivision Regulations which requires a minimum street right-of-way of 60 feet to permit dedication of a 50 foot right-of-way. 2. Waiver from the Master Street Plan and Subdivision Regulations which requires a sidewalk on both side of a commercial street to permit the construction of a sidewalk on one side only. 3. Variance from the Subdivision Regulation which restricts the length of a cul-de-sac to 1,000 feet to permit the cul-de-sac to be 1,700 feet in length. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes. a POD for the development of an office and office/warehouse project. The intent, as suggested, is to provide "a well -landscaped, attractive setting for businesses that need good access and exposure on I-630". The applicant maintains that, because of the shape of the site, access to the site, and the neighboring uses, the POD approach was chosen. The applicant proposes that all uses by right in the 0-3, general office district, and certain specified uses in the I-1, industrial park district, be permitted. Those uses in the I-1 district which are requested are: ambulance service headquarters post; appliance repair; hauling and storage company; job printing, lithographer, printing, or blueprinting plant; laboratory, landscape service; lawn and garden center, enclosed; March 22, 195 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 ("Continued) -FILE NO.: Z -4249-A light fabrication and assembly process; miniwarehouse; office warehouse; photography studio; plumbing, electrical, heating, or air conditioning shop; school, business; studio, broadcasting or recording; warehouse and wholesaling. The applicant proposes to erect one 36 foot high, free standing project sign on the northern property line, with 500 square feet of area; one 4.5 foot by 6 foot project entrance sigh is.proposed to be located at Freeway Drive and Rodney Parham; one ground mounted monument sign per lot is proposed, with a maximum area of 90 square feet per sign; and wall mounted and incidental signa4e is requested as allowed in the 0-3, General Office District, sign regulations. I The developer proposes to proceed with the development upon approval by the Board of Directors. There is the possibility that a two-stage development will be undertaken, with the initial development involving the construction of the roadway to Lot 4, then extending the development eastward as a second phase. The plan, at this time, is to either sell or retain and lease the project. A. PROPOSAWREOUEST : Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a POD which will permit all uses by right in the 0-3, general office district, and, in the I-1, industrial park district, the following uses: ambulance service headquarters post; appliance repair; hauling and storage company; job printing, lithographer, printing, or blueprinting plant; laboratory, landscape service; lawn and garden center, enclosed; light fabrication and assembly process; miniwarehouse; office warehouse; photography studio; plumbing, electrical, heating, or air conditioning shop; school, business; studio, broadcasting or recording; warehouse and wholesaling. The applicant suggests that, because of the features unique to the site, i.e. the "L" shape bounded by Haven of Rest Cemetery on the south and I-630 on the north; the need for limiting access to one access point only in order to protect the abutting residential property to the east; and C-3 and I-2 uses to the south and west, the POD which mixes 0-3 and I-1 uses is appropriate. In order to protect the residential neighborhood to the east which lies along Hughes St., the applicant proposes a cul- de-sac street off Rodney Parham and no access to the site from Hughes St. This choice requires a cul-de-sac street of 1700 feet in length, and this exceeds the maximum allowable length of 1000 feet. A variance, therefore, is requested. Because of the narrowness of the site, a 50 foot street right-of-way is proposed. The Regulations require a 60 foot right-of-way for a commercial street; therefore, a waiver of this requirement is requested. 2 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 Continued FILE NO.: Z --4249-A Only one lot lies south of the street; the remainder of the area south of the street is the Haven of Rest Cemetery. Since there is no perceived need for a sidewalk along the south side of the street, the applicant proposes to construct the sidewalk on the north side only. A waiver from the requirement is requested., The applicant requests approval of: one 36 foot high, free standing project sign on the northern property line, with 500 square feet of area; one 4.5 foot by 6 foot project entrance sigh is proposed to be located at Freeway Drive and Rodney Parham; one ground mounted monument sign per lot is proposed, with a maximum area of 90 square feet per sign; and wall mounted and incidental signage is requested as allowed in the 0-3, General Office District, sign regulations. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped, but has been mostly cleared. Some trees still stand on the site, mostly in the northeast portion of the tract. The topography rises from an elevation of 318 feet above M.S.L. at the southwest corner of the property to 390 feet at the northeast corner of the property, or a rise of 72 feet. The zoning maps show the zoning classification of the site to be PCD. The site was approved for a PCD development in 1985, and the zoning maps still show that designation, but since the proposed development was not constructed, and the time limit as specified in the Regulations has expired, the designation has lapsed and the PCD designation will be removed from the map. The property reverts to the former R- 5 zoning classification. The property to the east, in the residential area along Hughes St. is zoned R-4. The property which includes I-630 on the north side of the tract, and the bridge ramp for Hughes St. which forms the northeast boundary of the site is zoned R-2. The property to the south, which includes the cemetery, is zoned R-2. The property immediately to the west is zoned C-3, and across Rodney Parham to the west and across W. 12th. St. to the south is C-3 and I-2 zoned property. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that a 36 foot wide roadway is required, and that the right-of-way is required by the Regulations to be 60 feet wide. A sidewalk is required to be constructed on both side of the street. The developer is to comply with 3 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 [Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4249-A Section 31-402, Street Lighting Installation, requirements. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable. Water Works reports that a water main extension will be required. An acreage charge of $150.00 per acre applies in addition to the normal charges. 03�i-site fire protection will probably be required for some lots. Wastewater indicates that a sewer main is located on the property, but that is has never been accepted by Wastewater. A sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. The applicant can contact Wastewater Utility for details. Landscape review comments that landscape areas equal to a 3 foot wide landscape strip are required between public vehicular parking areas and the buildings they serve. A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the southern and eastern perimeters of the site adjacent to land zoned residential. This screen must be a "good neighbor" wood fence or be dense evergreen plantings. Arkansas Power & Light Co. and Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 10 foot wide easement along the east, north, and west property lines. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICALIDESIGN: Section 31-202, Dead-end streets and culs-de-sac, paragraph (a) stipulates that "Culs-de-sac shall have a maximum length of one thousand (1,000) feet.', The Master Street Plan, page 9, section 4, specifies that the design standard of a collector street is the standard for a commercial street. That detail, as well as Section 31-209, Street Classification and Standards, of the Subdivision Regulations, specifies that the right-of-way for a collector (or commercial) street is to be 60 feet in width and have a street width of 36 feet. Deficiencies in the submittal include: the landscape plan and the requirements for buffering need to be submitted; the quantitative date required in the submission needs to be furnished; the topographic cross section must be provided; and, a legal description of the POD site must be submitted. The Planning staff reports that the site is in the Boyle Park Planning District. The plan recommends commercial for the western section and multi -family for the area north of the cemetery to Hughes St. The proposed use pattern is an 4 March 22, 199 SUBDIVISION ITEM O.: 8 Continued FILE NO_: Z -4249-A acceptable alternative if there is an open space buffer along the eastern edge. This would be both a non -access as well as a separation indicator. E. ANALYSIS: The requested uses include all uses by right in the 0-3 and certain specified uses in the I-1 zoning districts. The 0-3 uses include not only office uses, but many commercial and institutional uses. The I-1 uses listed are: ambulance service headquarters post; appliance repair; hauling and storage company; job printing, lithographer, printing, or blueprinting plant; laboratory, landscape service; lawn and garden center, enclosed; light fabrication and assembly process; miniwarehouse; office warehouse; photography studio; plumbing, electrical, heating, or air conditioning shop; school, business; studio, broadcasting or recording; warehouse and wholesaling. The types of requested uses, then, are broad -ranging. The stated intention of the developer is to develop an office and office/warehouse project, and the uses which have been listed are in keeping with this intention. The I-1 uses which are more intense, e.g., ambulance service headquarters post; hauling and storage company; plumbing, electrical, heating, or air conditioning shop; and, warehouse and wholesaling, should be limited to the western portion of the site and should not be in close proximity to the residential area. A no vehicle access easement should be platted along the property line abutting the Hughes Street lots to forestall future drives or access. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the POD as requested, with the requirements noted above regarding, excluding the more intense uses from the eastern portion of the site and the platting of a "no vehicle access easement" at the Hughes Street side property line. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) The representatives of the developer, Mr. David Simmons, and the project engineer, Mr. Pat McGetrick, were present. The Committee reviewed with the applicant's representatives the list of deficiencies and questions contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Simmons and Mr. McGetrick replied that the needed information and corrections would be forthcoming. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. 67 March 22, 199 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: z -4249-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff presented the item, and recommended approval of the POD subject to a "No vehicle access" easement being platted along the east property line abutting Hughes Street and the Hughes Street property, and a restriction being imposed on the location of any future ambulance service headquarters post so that any such facility will not affect the residential area. Staff also related that the applicant wanted it clarified that the site plan which has been submitted is schematic and a representation of possible building sites and footprints; but that a later --date when tenants and buyers are lined up, there may need to be recombinations of lots and the configuration of buildings may have to be changed. David Simmons, representing the applicant, distributed to Commission members copies of a letter delivered to staff prior tc the meeting. The letter addressed the concerns regarding: 1) retaining flexibility in lot combination and building size and orientation; 2) the location and height of the project sign; 3) a self-imposed limitation of 2 stories in height for the buildings; 4) the restriction of uses for the western -most lot; and 5) the construction of perimeter fencing. Mr. Simmons mentioned that the project involves the creation of 6 lots on a 13 acre tract. Because the land is a strip of land which had access only to Hughes Street on the ease, and did not have access to Rodney Parham to the west, the developer negotiated with the property owner to the west along Rodney Parham in order to construct a street to the proposed development through this other property to the west. With this accomplished, the proposed development could gain access from the west, from Rodney Parham, which is a commercial street, and could eliminate the need to have access to Hughes Street, which is a residential street. The resulting development, is a cul-de-sac off Rodney Parham, with no access to Hughes St. Mr. Simmons explained that the site plan which shows buildable areas are not to be considered fixed building "footprints"; that there is a need for some flexibility in the design and configuration of future buildings. He related that the developer needed some flexibility in the height and location of the project sign, since the location which is designated on the plat is the low point in the topography and a 36 foot high sign could not be seen from the freeway. He related that the buildings in the development would be limited to 2 stores in height. Mr. Simmons mentioned that he and other representatives of the applicant had held a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed development; that the neighborhood concerns had centered on the fencing of the project, especially along the Hughes St. lots and frontage; that there had been a desire on the part of some neighbors that the fence be a wrought iron and brick or stone fence, but that the developer was willing only to construct a wood privacy or chain line with evergreen 11 March 22, 199 -- SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 Continued FILE NO.: Z -4249-A screening device; and, that the consensus had been for a chain link fence with evergreens planted for privacy. Mr. Simmons also related that the developer is willing to limit the Lot 9 uses to exclude the ambulance service post, electrical shops, and HVAC shops. The warehouses on Lot 9 will have their accesses on the north and west sides of the buildings; not any on the east or south faces of the buildings. Mr. Simmons requested all allowed uses be permitted on the Lot 8 tract and those further west. Chairperson Chachere asked for comments from those who had turned in cards indicating a desire to speak on the issue. Chris White addressed the Commission. She related that the development and its character area a "big deal" to her and her neighbors; that the homes in the neighborhood are the "big investment" for them, and the development must look good and be in character with the neighborhood. She complained that a chain link fence would not be in character with the neighborhood; but that a stone or brick and wrought iron fence would look good. She complained that the mini -storage units are placed closest to the rear lot line where they can be seen from Hughes St. Paul Donahu introduced himself as living at the southeast corner of the proposed development, and said that he had no objection to the development; that it was the best in 20 years since it considered the neighborhood's need for no access to Hughes St. He related, however, that he would like to see a fence along the west boundary of the project which would be in character with the neighborhood. Mr. Simmons responded that a wood privacy fence had been planned, but that at the neighborhood meeting, the consensus had seemed to favor a chain link fence with evergreen scrubs planted in front of the fence. The developer had, therefore, agreed to that request. He went on to say that the developer is flexible on the type of fence, but that a wrought iron fence would be cost prohibitive; the developer cannot afford such a fence. Chairperson Chachere summarized the situation, saying that the neighbors are now saying that they do not want a chain link fence, and that the developer will build a wood privacy fence. She then asked staff for the requirements on fencing. Bob Brown related that the requirement is for an opaque screen, and that it can either be a "good neighbor" wood fence or a chain link fence with evergreen shrubs planted every 30 inches which will grown to a minimum of 6 feet in height within 3 years. A brick or stone fence would meet the requirements. A chain link fence is not encouraged unless the neighbors want it. The plantings would be on the development side of the fence, leaving the chain link on the neighbor's side of the fence. 7 March 22, 19_ SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: $ Continued FILE NO.: Z -4249-A Mr. Simmons said that, at the neighborhood meeting, the neighbors had said that they did not want a wood fence; that they wanted to be able to see through it. They had wanted a chain link fence with evergreen plantings. After that meeting, Ms. White had proposed a wrought iron fence with brick columns every 30 feet. The developer, Mr. Simmons concluded, could not afford such a fence, and asks that it not be required. The developer, he said, would build either a wood or chain link fence, as preferred by the neighbors. Commissioner Oleson asked for clarifiction on the status'of the three residential lots on Hughes Street which are owned by the developer. Staff reported that the three lots are not included in the preliminary plat area or the POD area; that they remain as residential lots in the abutting subdivision. Ralph White asked to address the Commission. He indicated that he is the husband of Chris white. He complained that the entire neighborhood is not affected by the proposed development; but that only 3 or 4 homes are affected; that it does not matter what the entire neighborhood wants, but what those directly affected want. He continued that he and his wife were adamant that they do not want a chain link fence; that the developer should be required to put up a decent fence that is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Simmons replied that the developers want to build a proper fence, but that a brick and wrought iron fence was not feasible. A privacy wood fence as required by the Ordinance would be built if that is what the neighbors want. Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification on the project sign issue. She indicated that the plan shows a 36 foot high sign on I-630, and wondered if neighbors on the project side of the freeway, as well as across the freeway, were aware of what an intrusion the sign would bring. Mr. McGetrick explained that the grade at the point shown on the plan for the location of the sign is 25 feet below the grade of the freeway; therefore, the sign would actually be about 10 feet above the travel lane of the freeway. Staff related that, according to the Ordinance, the sign may be 36 feet above the center line of the nearest freeway lane; the height is "not measured from the ground at the base of the sign. Commissioner Nicholson commented that the restriction on the height of the sign needed to be based on the height above the freeway. N March 22, 19t, SUBDIVISION ITEM O.: 8 Continued FILE NO.: Z-424 -A Mr. McGetrick suggested that a height of 7 to 10 feet above the freeway lane would be acceptable. �r Chairperson Chachere asked for a motion to approve the PCD with the restriction on the height of the sign above the freeway lanes of 7 feet. A motion was made and seconded to approve the PCD with the restriction on the height of the sign. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention. 1 z 1. Meeting Date: April 19, 1994 2. Case No.: Z -4249-A 3. R�,iest: Establishment of FREEWAY BUSINESS PARK LONG -FORM POD 4. Location: On the south side of I-630, approximately 0.1 mile east of Rodney Parham Rd., and extending east to Hughes Street. 5. owner/Applicant: Freeway Investment Co. 6. Existing Status: Vacant; Zoned R-5, Urban Residence District 7. Proposed Use: Offices and Commercial 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval 10. Conditions or Issues Remaining to be Resolved: Amendment of the Land Use Plan and approval of waivers and variance for FREEWAY BUSINESS PARK SUBDIVISION (S-1012) 11. Right-of-way Issues: None 12. Recommendation Forwarded with: A vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention (Ball) 13. Objectors: Chris White 14. Neighborhood Plan: Boyle Park (10) FILE NO.: Z -4249-A NAME: FREEWAY BUSINESS PARK -- LONG -FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: South of I-630, beginning approximately 0.1 mile east of Rodney Parham Road and extending east to Hughes Street DEVELOPER ENGINEER FREEWAY INVESTMENT COMPANY MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 620 W. 3rd. St., Suite 210 11225 Huron Lane, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72211 374-5417 223-9900 AREA: 12.8 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREE'T': 1000 ZONING: C-3 to POD PROPOSED USES: Offices and Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 CENSUS TRACT: 21.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None 1. Waiver from the Master Street Plan and Subdivision Regulations which requires a minimum street right-of-way of 60 feet to permit dedication of a 50 foot right-of-way. 2. Waiver from the Master Street Plan and Subdivision Regulations which requires a sidewalk on both side of a commercial street to permit the construction of a sidewalk on one side only. 3. Variance from the Subdivision Regulation which restricts the length of a cul-de-sac to 1,000 feet to permit the cul-de-sac to be 1,700 feet in length. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a POD for the development of an office and office/warehouse project. The intent, as suggested, is to provide "a well -landscaped, attractive setting for businesses that need good access and exposure on I-630". The applicant maintains that, because of the shape of the site, access to the site, and the neighboring uses, the POD approach was chosen. The applicant proposes that all uses by right in the 0-3, general office district, and certain specified uses in the I-1, industrial park district, be permitted. Those uses in the I-1 district which are requested are: ambulance service headquarters post; appliance repair; hauling and storage company; job printing, lithographer, printing, or blueprinting plant; laboratory, landscape service; lawn and garden center, enclosed; light fabrication and assembly process; miniwarehouse; office FILE NO.: Z -4249-A (Continued warehouse; photography studio; plumbing, electrical, heating, or air conditioning shop; school, business; studio, broadcasting or recording; warehouse and wholesaling. The applicant proposes to erect one 36 foot high, free standing project sign on the northern property Line, with afeet o area; one 4.5 foot by 6 foot project entrance sigh is proposed to be located at Freeway Drive and Rodney Parham; one ground mounted monument sign per lot is proposed, with a maximum area of 90 square feet per sign; and wall mounted and incidental signage is requested as allowed in the 0-3, General Office District, sign regulations. The developer proposes to proceed with the development upon approval by the Board of Directors. There is the possibility that a two-stage development will be undertaken, with the initial development involving the construction of the roadway to Lot 4, then extending the development eastward as a second phase. The plan, at this time, is to either sell or retain and lease the project. A. PROPOSAL RE UEST: In order to protect the residential neighborhood to the east which lies along Hughes St., the applicant proposes a cul- de-sac street off Rodney Parham and no access to the site from Hughes St. This choice requires a cul-de-sac street of 1700 feet in length, and this exceeds the maximum allowable length of 1000 feet. A variance, therefore, is requested. Because of the narrowness of the site, a 50 foot street right-of-way is proposed. The Regulations require a 60 foot right-of-way for a commercial street; therefore, a waiver of this requirement is requested. 2 Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a POD which will permit all uses by right in the 0-3, general office district, and, in the I-1, industrial park district, the following uses: o� ambulance service headquarters post; appliance repair; ,S hauling and storage company; job printing, lithographer, printing, or blueprinting plant; laboratory, landscape service; lawn and garden center, enclosed; light fabrication and assembly process; miniwarehouse; office warehouse; photography studio; plumbing, electrical, heating, or air conditioning shop; school, business; studio, broadcasting or recording; warehouse and wholesaling. The applicant suggests that, because of the features unique to the site, i.e. the "L" shape bounded by Haven of Rest Cemetery on the south and I-630 on the north; the need for limiting access to one access point only in order to protect the abutting residential property to the east; and C-3 and I-2 uses to the south and west, the POD which mixes 0-3 and I-1 uses is appropriate. In order to protect the residential neighborhood to the east which lies along Hughes St., the applicant proposes a cul- de-sac street off Rodney Parham and no access to the site from Hughes St. This choice requires a cul-de-sac street of 1700 feet in length, and this exceeds the maximum allowable length of 1000 feet. A variance, therefore, is requested. Because of the narrowness of the site, a 50 foot street right-of-way is proposed. The Regulations require a 60 foot right-of-way for a commercial street; therefore, a waiver of this requirement is requested. 2 FILE NO.: Z -4249-A_ (Continued) Only one lot lies south of the street; the remainder of the area south of the street is the Haven of Rest Cemetery. Since there is no perceived need for a sidewalk along the south side of the street, the applicant proposes to construct the sidewalk on the north side only. A waiver from the requirement is requested. The applicant requests approval of: one 3,6 foot high, free standing project sign on the northern property line, with 500 square feet of area; one 4.5 foot by 6 foot project entrance sigh is proposed to be located at Freeway Drive and Rodney Parham; one ground mounted monument sign per lot is proposed, with a maximum area of 90 square feet per' sign; and wall mounted and incidental signage is requested as allowed in the 0-3, General Office District, sign regulations. H. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped, but has been mostly cleared. Some trees still stand on the site, mostly in the northeast portion of the tract. The topography rises from an elevation of 318 feet above M.S.L. at the southwest corner of the property to 390 feet at the northeast corner of the property, or a rise of 72 feet. The zoning maps show the zoning classification of the site to be PCD. The site was approved for a PCD development in 1985, and the zoning maps still show that designation, but since the proposed development was not constructed, and the time limit as specified in the Regulations has expired, the designation has lapsed and the PCD designation will be removed from the map. The property reverts to the former R- 5 zoning classification. The property to the east, in the residential area along Hughes St. is zoned R-4. The property which includes I-630 on the north side of the tract, and the bridge ramp for Hughes St. which forms the northeast boundary of the site is zoned R-2. The property to the south, which includes the cemetery, is zoned R-2. The property immediately to the west is zoned C-3, and across Rodney Parham to the west and across W. 12th. St. to the south is C-3 and I-2 zoned property. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that a 36 foot wide roadway is required, and that the right-of-way is required by the Regulations to be 60 feet wide. A sidewalk is required to be constructed on both side of the street. The developer is to comply with Section 31-402, Street Lighting Installation, requirements. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable. 3 FTLE NO.: Z -4249-A Continued Water Works reports that a water main extension will be required. An acreage charge of $150.00 per acre applies in addition to the normal charges. On-site fire protection will probably be required for some lots. Wastewater indicates that a sewer main is located on the property, but that is has never been accepted by Wastewater. A sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. The applicant can contact Wastewater Utility for details. Landscape review comments that landscape areas equal to a 3 foot wide landscape strip are required between public vehicular parking areas and the buildings they serve. A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the southern and eastern perimeters of the site adjacent to land zoned residential. This screen must be a "good neighbor" wood fence or be dense evergreen plantings. Arkansas Power & Light Co. and Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 10 foot wide easement along the east, north, and west property lines. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Section 31-202, Dead-end streets and culs-de-sac, paragraph (a) stipulates that "Culs-de-sac shall have a maximum length of one thousand (1,000) feet." The Master Street Plan, page 9, section 4, specifies that the design standard of a collector street is the standard for a commercial street. That detail, as well as Section 31-209, Street Classification and Standards, of the Subdivision Regulations, specifies that the right-of-way for a collector (or commercial) street is to be 60 feet in width and have a street width of 36 feet. Deficiencies in the submittal include: the landscape plan and the requirements for buffering need to be submitted; the quantitative date required in the submission needs to be furnished; the topographic cross section must be provided; and, a legal description of the POD site must be submitted. The Planning staff reports that the site is in the Boyle Park Planning District. The plan recommends commercial for the western section and multi -family for the area north of the cemetery to Hughes St. The proposed use pattern is an acceptable alternative if there is an open space buffer along the eastern edge. This would be both a non -access as well as a separation indicator. 4 FILE NO.: Z -4249-A (Continued) E. ANALYSIS: The requested uses include all uses by right in the 0-3 and certain specified uses in the I-1 zoning districts. The 0-3 uses include not only office uses, but many commercial and institutional uses. The I-1 uses listed are: ambulance service headquarters post; appliance repair; hauling and storage company; job printing, lithographer, printing, or blueprinting plant; laboratory, landscape service; lawn and garden center, enclosed; light fabrication and assembly process; miniwarehouse; office warehouse; photography studio; plumbing, electrical, heating, or air conditioning shop; school, business; studio, broadcasting or recording; warehouse and wholesaling. The types of requested uses, then, are broad -ranging. The stated intention of the developer is to develop an office and office/warehouse project, and the uses which have been listed are in keeping with this intention. The I-1 uses which are more intense, e.g., ambulance service headquarters post; hauling and storage company; plumbing, electrical, heating, or air conditioning shop; and, warehouse and wholesaling, should be limited to the western portion of the site and should not be in close proximity to the residential area. A no vehicle access easement should be platted along the property line abutting the Hughes Street lots to forestall future drives or access. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the POD as requested, with the requirements noted above regarding, excluding the more intense uses from the eastern portion of the site and the platting of a "no vehicle access easement" at the Hughes Street side property line. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) The representatives of the developer, Mr. David Simmons, and the project engineer, Mr. Pat McGetrick, were present. The Committee reviewed with the applicant's representatives the list of deficiencies and questions contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Simmons and Mr. McGetrick replied that the needed information and corrections would be forthcoming. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff presented the item, and recommended approval of the POD subject to a "No vehicle access" easement being platted along the 5 FILE NO.: Z -4249-A (Continued) east property line abutting Hughes Street and the Hughes Street property, and a restriction being imposed on the location of any future ambulance service headquarters post so that any such facility will not affect the residential area. Staff also related that the applicant wanted it clarified that the site plan which has been submitted is schematic and a representation of possible building sites and footprints; but that a later date when tenants and buyers are lined up, there may need to be recombinations of lots and the configuration of buildings may have to be changed. David Simmons, representing the applicant, distributed to Commission members copies of a letter delivered to staff prior to the meeting. The letter addressed the concerns regarding: 1) retaining flexibility in lot combination and building size and orientation; 2) the location and height of the project sign; 3) a self-imposed limitation of 2 stories in height for the buildings; 4) the restriction of uses for the western -most lot; and 5) the construction of perimeter fencing. Mr. Simmons mentioned that the project involves the creation of 6 lots on a 13 acre tract. Because the land is a strip of land which had access only to Hughes Street on the ease, and did not have access to Rodney Parham to the west, the developer negotiated with the property owner to the west along Rodney Parham in order to construct a street to the proposed development through this other property to the west. with this accomplished, the proposed development could gain access from the west, from Rodney Parham, which is a commercial street, and could eliminate the need to have access to Hughes Street, which is a residential street. The resulting development, is a cul-de-sac off Rodney Parham, with no access to Hughes St. Mr. Simmons explained that the site plan which shows buildable areas are not to be considered fixed building "footprints"; that there is a need for some flexibility in the design and configuration of future buildings. He related that the developer needed some flexibility in the height and location of the project sign, since the location which is designated on the plat is the low point in the topography and a 36 foot high sign could not be seen from the freeway. He related that the buildings in the development would be limited to 2 stores in height. Mr. Simmons mentioned that he and other representatives of the applicant had held a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed development; that the neighborhood concerns had centered on the fencing of the project, especially along the Hughes St. lots and frontage; that there had been a desire on the part of some neighbors that the fence be a wrought iron and brick or stone fence, but that the developer was willing only to construct a wood privacy or chain line with evergreen screening device; and, that the consensus had been for a chain link fence with evergreens planted for privacy. Mr. Simmons also related that the developer is willing to limit the Lot 9 uses to exclude the ambulance service post, electrical shops, and HVAC shops. The warehouses on Lot 9 will have their accesses on the 11 FILE NO.: Z -4249-A (Continued north and west sides of the buildings; not any on the east or south faces of the buildings. Mr. Simmons requested all allowed uses be permitted on the Lot 8 tract and those further west. Chairperson Chachere asked for comments from those who had turned in cards indicating a desire to speak on the issue. Chris White addressed the Commission. She related that the development and its character area a "big deal" to her and her neighbors; that the homes in the neighborhood are the "big investment" for them, and the development must look good and be in character with the neighborhood. She complained that a chain link fence would not be in character with the neighborhood; but that a stone or brick and wrought iron fence would look good. She complained that the mini -storage units are placed closest to the rear lot line where they can be seen from Hughes St. Paul Donahu introduced himself as living at the southeast corner of the proposed development, and said that he had no objection to the development; that it was the best in 20 years since it considered the neighborhood's need for no access to Hughes St. He related, however, that he would like to see a fence along the west boundary of the project which would be in character with the neighborhood. Mr. Simmons responded that a wood privacy fence had been planned, but that at the neighborhood meeting, the consensus had seemed to favor a chain link fence with evergreen scrubs planted in front of the fence. The developer had, therefore, agreed to that request. He went on to say that the developer is flexible on the type of fence, but that a wrought iron fence would be cost prohibitive; the developer cannot afford such a fence. Chairperson Chachere summarized the situation, saying that the neighbors are now saying that they do not want a chain link fence, and that the developer will build a wood privacy fence. She then asked staff for the requirements on fencing. Bob Brown related that the requirement is for an opaque screen, and that it can either be a "good neighbor" wood fence or a chain link fence with evergreen shrubs planted every 30 inches which will grown to a minimum of 6 feet in height within 3 years. A brick or stone fence would meet the requirements. A chain link fence is not encouraged unless the neighbors want it. The plantings would be on the development side of the fence, leaving the chain link on the neighbor's side of the fence. Mr. Simmons said that, at the neighborhood meeting, the neighbors had said that they did not want a wood fence; that they wanted to be able to see through it. They had wanted a chain link fence with evergreen plantings. After that meeting, Ms. White had proposed a wrought iron fence with brick columns every 30 feet. 7 FILE NO_: Z -4249-A Continued The developer, Mr. Simmons concluded, could not afford such a fence, and asks that it not be required. The developer, he said, would build either a wood or chain link fence, as preferred by the neighbors. Commissioner Oleson asked for clarifiction on the status of the three residential lots on Hughes Street which are owned by the developer. Staff reported that the three lots are not included in the preliminary plat area or the POD area; that they remain as residential lots in the abutting subdivision. Ralph White asked to address the Commission. He indicated that he is the husband of Chris White. He complained that the entire neighborhood is not affected by the proposed development; but that only 3 or 4 homes are affected; that it does not matter what the entire neighborhood wants, but what those directly affected want. He continued that he and his wife were adamant that they do not want a chain link fence; that the developer should be required to put up a decent fence that is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Simmons replied that the developers want to build a proper fence, but that a brick and wrought iron fence was not feasible. A privacy wood fence as required by the Ordinance would be built if that is what the neighbors want. Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification on the project sign issue. She indicated that the plan shows a 271- foot high sign on I-630, and wondered if neighbors on the projct side of the freeway, as well as across the freeway, were aware of what an intrusion the sign would bring. Mr. McGetrick explained that the grade at the point shown on the plan for the location of the sign is feet below the grade of the freeway; therefore, the sign would actually be about 10 feet above the travel lane of the freeway. Staff related that, according to the Ordinance, the sign may be 36 feet above the center line of the nearest freeway lane; the height is not measured from the ground at the base of the sign. Commissioner Nicholson commented that the restriction on the height of the sign needed to be based on the height above the freeway. Mr. McGetrick suggested that a height of 7 to 10 feet above the freeway lane would be acceptable. Chairperson Chachere asked for a motion to approve the PCD with the restriction on the height of the sign above the freeway lanes 0 FILE NO.: Z -4249-A Continued of 7 feet. A motion was made and with the restriction on the height carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 1 abstention. 9 seconded to approve the PCD of the sign. The motion 0 nays, 0 absent, and Item: Amendment to the City Land Use Plan - Boyle Park Location: South of I-630 and West of Hughes Request: MF to Commercial Sourch: Staff -- Rezoning Request Staff Report: As part of a rezoning request, staff reviewed the recommended the recommended Plan. Though the Plan calls for multifamily, with the surrounding existing conditions, a business use is an acceptable alternative. There is a sensitive area to the east and south of Hughes Street. The homes in University Park should be protected from any negative impacts from the proposed commercial. To minimize the negative impacts, no access to Hughes Street should be permitted. There are undeveloped residential lots which lie between the commercial area and Hughes Street which the developer owns. These undeveloped lots are to remain zoned and shown on the Plan as residential lots. There is 135 feet from the east boundary of the proposed PCD and the Hughes Street right-of-way which will remain as residential zoning, and will act as a buffer between the commercial area and the existing development along Hughes St. To this end, the Plan should be changed to commercial between the Haven of Rest cemetery and I-630, and from the existing commercial zoning on the west to 135 feet west of the Hughes St. right-of-way. Staff recommendation: Approval I March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 8 _ _ _ FILE NO.: Z-4249- NAME- FREEWAY BUSINESS PARK -- LONG -FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: South of I-630, beginning approximately 0.1 mile east of Rodney Parham Rd. & extending east to Hughes St. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: FREEWAY INVESTMENT COMPANY MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 620 W. 3rd. St., Suite 210 11225 Huron Lane, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72211-' 374-5417 223-9900 AREA: 12.8 ACRES N`UMEER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 1000 ZONING: C-3 to POD PROPOSED USES: Offices and Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 CENSUS TRACT: 21.01 VARIANCES RE UESTED: None 1. Waiver from the Master Street Plan and Subdivision Regulations which requires a minimum street right-of-way of 60 feet to permit dedication of a 50 foot right-of-way. 2. Waiver from the Master Street Plan and Subdivision Regulations which requires a sidewalk on both side of a commercial street to permit the construction of a sidewalk on one side only. 3. Variance from the Subdivision Regulation which restricts the length of a cul-de-sac to 1,000 feet to permit the cul-de-sac to be 1,700 feet in length. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a POD for the development of an office and office/warehouse project. The intent,• as suggested, is to provide "a well -landscaped, attractive setting for businesses that need good access and exposure on I-630". The applicant maintains that, because of the shape of the site, access to the site, and the neighboring uses, the POD approach was chosen. The applicant proposes that all uses by right in the 0-3, general office district, and certain specified uses in the I-1, industrial park district, be permitted. Those uses in the I-1 district which are requested are: ambulance service headquarters post; appliance repair; hauling and storage company; job printing, lithographer, printing, or blueprinting plant; laboratory, landscape service; lawn and garden center, enclosed; ' March 22, 195 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) _ FILE NO Z 4249-A light fabrication and assembly process; miniwarehouse; office warehouse; photography studio; plumbing, electrical, heating, or air conditioning shop; school, business; studio, broadcasting or recording; warehouse and wholesaling. The applicant prop9ses to erect one 36 foot high, free standing project sign on the northern property line, with 500 square feet of area; onL 4.5 foot by 6 foot project entrance sigh-is.proposed to be located at Freeway Drive and Rodney Parham;- one ground mounted monument sign per lot is proposed, with a maximum area of 90 square feet per sign; and wall mounted and incidental signage is requested as allowed in the 0-3, General Office District, sign regulations. The developer proposes to proceed with the development upon approval by the Board of Directors. There is the possibility that a two-stage development will be undertaken, with the initial development involving the construction of the roadway to Lot 4, then extending the development eastward as a second phase. The plan, at this time, is to either sell or retain and lease the project. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a POD which will permit all uses by right in the 0-3, general office district, and, in the I-1, industrial park district, the following uses: ambulance service headquarters post; appliance repair; hauling and storage company; job printing, lithographer, printing, or blueprinting plant; laboratory, landscape service; lawn and garden center, enclosed; light fabrication and assembly process; miniwarehouse; office warehouse; photography studio; plumbing, electrical, heating, or air conditioning shop; school, business; studio, broadcasting or recording; warehouse and wholesaling. The applicant suggests that, because of the features unique to the site, i.e. the "L" shape bounded by Haven of Rest Cemetery on the south and I-630 on the north; the need for limiting access to one access point only in order to protect the abutting residential property to the east; and C-3 and I-2 uses to the south and west, the POD which mixes 0-3 and I-1 uses is appropriate. In order to protect the residential neighborhood to the east which lies along Hughes St., the applicant proposes a cul- de-sac street off Rodney Parham and no access to the site from Hughes St. This choice requires a cul-de-sac street of 1700 feet in length, and this exceeds the maximum allowable length of 1000 feet. A variance, therefore, is requested. Because of the narrowness of the site, a 50 foot street right-of-way is proposed. The Regulations require a 60 foot right-of-way for a commercial street; therefore, a waiver of this requirement is requested. 2 March 22, 1994 gBDIVISION ITEM NO.: $ Continued FILE NO.: Z -4249-A Only one lot lies south of the street; the remainder of the area south of the street is the Haven of Rest Cemetery. Since there is no perceived need for a sidewalk along the south side of the street, the applicant proposes to construct the sidewalk on the north side only. A waiver from the requirement is requested., The applicant requests approval of: one 36 foot high, free standing project sign on the northern property line, with 500 square feet of area; one 4.5 foot by 6 foot project entrance sigh is proposed to be located at Freeway Drive and Rodney Parham; one ground mounted monument sign per lot is proposed, with a maximum area of 90 square feet per sign; and wall mounted and incidental signage is requested as allowed in the 0-3, General Office District, sign regulations. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped, but has been mostly cleared. Some trees still stand on the site, mostly in the northeast portion of the tract. The topography rises from an elevation of 318 feet above M.S.L. at the southwest corner of the property to 390 feet at the northeast corner of the property, or a rise of 72 feet. The zoning maps show the zoning classification of the site to be PCD. The site was approved for a PCD development in 1985, and the zoning maps still show that designation, but since the proposed development was not constructed, and the time limit as specified in the Regulations has expired, the designation has lapsed and the PCD designation will be removed from the map. The property reverts to the former R- 5 zoning classification. The property to the east, in the residential area along Hughes St. is zoned R-4. The property which includes I-630 on`the north side of the tract, and the bridge ramp for Hughes St. which forms the northeast boundary of the site is zoned R-2. The property to the south, which includes the cemetery, is zoned R-2. The property immediately to the west is zoned C-3, and across Rodney Parham to the west and across W. 12th. St. to the south is C-3 and I-2 zoned property. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that a 36 foot wide roadway is required, and that the right-of-way is required by the Regulations to be 60 feet wide. A sidewalk is required to be constructed on both side of the street. The developer is to comply with 3 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 C ntinu FILE NO.: Z -4249--A Section 31-402, Street Lighting Installation, requirements. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable. Water Works reports that a water main extension will be required. An acreage charge of $150.00 per acre applies in addition to the normal charges. 04 -site fire protection will probably be required for some lots. Wastewater indicates that a sewer main is located on the property, but that is has never been accepted by Wastewater. A sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. The applicant can contact Wastewater Utility for details. Landscape review comments that landscape areas equal to a 3 foot wide landscape strip are required between public vehicular parking areas and the buildings they serve. A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the southern and eastern perimeters of the site adjacent to land zoned residential. This screen must be a "good neighbor" wood fence or be dense evergreen plantings. Arkansas Power & Light Co. and Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 10 foot wide easement along the east, north, and west property lines. D. ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: Section 31-202, Dead-end streets and culs-de-sac, paragraph (a) stipulates that "Culs-de-sac shall have a maximum length of one thousand (1,000) feet." The Master Street Plan, page 9, section 4, specifies that the design standard of a collector street is the standard for a commercial street. That detail, as well as Section 31-209, Street Classification and Standards, of the Subdivision Regulations, specifies that the right-of-way for a collector (or commercial) street is to be 60 feet in width and have a street width of 36 feet. Deficiencies in the submittal include: the landscape plan and the requirements for buffering need to be submitted; the quantitative date required in the submission needs to be furnished; the topographic cross section must be provided; and, a legal description of the POD site must be submitted. The Planning staff reports that the site is in the Boyle Park Planning District. The plan recommends commercial for the western section and multi -family for the area north of the cemetery to Hughes St. The proposed use pattern is an 4 March 22, 195 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 Ccntinu d FILE NO.: Z -4249-A acceptable alternative if there is an open space buffer along the eastern edge. This would be both a non -access as well as a separation indicator. E. ANALYSIS: The. requested uses include all uses by right in the 0-3 and certain specified uses in the I-1 zoning districts. The 0-3 uses include not only office uses, but many commercial and institutional uses. The I-1 uses listed are: ambulance service headquarters post; appliance repair; hauling and storage company; job printing, lithographer, printing, or blueprinting plant; laboratory, landscape service; lawn and garden center, enclosed; light fabrication and assembly process; miniwarehouse; office warehouse; photography studio; plumbing, electrical, heating, or air conditioning shop; school, business; studio, broadcasting or recording; warehouse and wholesaling. The types of requested uses, then, are broad -ranging. The stated intention of the developer is to develop an office and office/warehouse project, and the uses which have been listed are in keeping with this intention. The I-1 uses which are more intense, e.g., ambulance service headquarters post; hauling and storage company; plumbing, electrical, heating, or air conditioning shop; and, warehouse and wholesaling, should be limited to the western portion of the site and should not be in close proximity to the residential area. A no vehicle access easement should be platted along the property line abutting the Hughes Street lots to forestall future drives or access. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the POD as requested, with the requirements noted above regarding, excluding the more intense uses from the eastern portion of the site and the Platting of a "no vehicle access ''easement" at the Hughes Street side property line. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) The representatives of the developer, Mr. David Simmons, and the project engineer, Mr. Pat McGetrick, were present. The Committee reviewed with the applicants representatives the list of deficiencies and questions contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Simmons and Mr. McGetrick replied that the needed information and corrections would be forthcoming. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. 5 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued.) FILE NO • Z -4249-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff presented the item, and recommended approval of the POD subject to a "No vehicle access" easement being platted along the east property line abutting Hughes Street and the Hughes Street property, and a restriction being imposed on the location of any future ambulance service headquarters post so that any such facility will not affect the residential area. Staff also related that the applicant wanted it clarified that the site plan which has been submitted is schematic and a representation of possible building sites and footprints; but that a later -'date when tenants and buyers are lined up, there may need to be recombinations of lots and the configuration of buildings may have to be changed. David Simmons, representing the applicant, distributed to Commission members copies of a letter delivered to staff prior tc the meeting. The letter addressed the concerns regarding: 1) retaining flexibility in lot combination and building size and orientation; 2) the location and height of the project sign; 3) a self-imposed limitation of 2 stories in height for the buildings; 4) the restriction of uses for the western -most lot; and 5) the construction of perimeter fencing. Mr. Simmons mentioned that the project involves the creation of 6 lots on a 13 acre tract. Because the land is a strip of land which had access only to Hughes Street on the ease, and did not have access to Rodney Parham to the west, the developer negotiated with the property owner to the west along Rodney Parham in order to construct a street to the proposed development through this other property to the west. With this accomplished, the proposed development could gain access from the west, from Rodney Parham, which is a commercial street, and could eliminate the need to have access to Hughes Street, which is a residential street. The resulting development, is a cul-de-sac off Rodney Parham, with no access to Hughes St. Mr. Simmons explained that the site plan which shows buildable areas are not to be considered fixed building "footprints"; that there is a need for some flexibility in the design and configuration of future buildings. He related that the developer needed some flexibility in the height and location of the project sign, since the location which is designated on the plat is the low point in the topography and a 36 foot high sign could not be seen from the freeway. He related that the buildings. in the development would be limited to 2 stores in height. Mr. Simmons mentioned that he and other representatives of the applicant had held a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed development; that the neighborhood concerns had centered on the fencing of the project, especially along the Hughes St. lots and frontage; that there had been a desire on the part of some neighbors that the fence be a wrought iron and brick or stone fence, but that the developer was willing only to construct a wood privacy or chain line with evergreen 3 March 22, 199- SUBDIVISION 95_ SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 0 Continued FILE NO.: Z -4249-A screening device; and, that the consensus had been for a chain link fence with evergreens planted for privacy. Mr. Simmons also related that the developer is willing to limit the Lot 9 uses to exclude the ambulance service post, electrical shops, and HVAC shops. The warehouses on Lot 9 will have their accesses on the north and west sides of the buildings; not any on the east or south faces of the buildings. Mr. Simmons requested all allowed uses be permitted on the Lot 8 tract and those further west. Chairperson Chachere asked for comments from those who had turned in cards indicating a desire to speak on the issue. Chris White addressed the Commission. She related that the development and its character area a "big deal" to her and her neighbors; that the homes in the neighborhood are the "big investment" for them, and the development must look good and be in character with the neighborhood. She complained that a chain link fence would not be in character with the neighborhood; but that a stone or brick and wrought iron fence would look good. She complained that the mini -storage units are placed closest to the rear lot line where they can be seen from Hughes St. Paul Donahu introduced himself as living at the southeast corner of the proposed development, and said that he had no objection to the development; that it was the best in 20 years since it considered the neighborhood's need for no access to Hughes St. He related, however, that he would like to see a fence along the west boundary of the project which would be in character with the neighborhood. Mr. Simmons responded that a wood privacy fence had been planned, but that at the neighborhood meeting, the consensus had seemed to favor a chain link fence with evergreen scrubs planted in front of the fence. The developer had, therefore, agreed to that request. He went on to say that the developer is flexible on the type of fence, but that a wrought iron fence would be cost prohibitive; the developer cannot afford such a fence. Chairperson Chachere summarized the situation, saying that the neighbors are now saying that they do not want a chain link fence, and that the developer will build a wood privacy fence. She then asked staff for the requirements on fencing. Bob Brown related that the requirement is for an opaque screen, and that it can either be a "good neighbor" wood fence or a chain link fence with evergreen shrubs planted every 30 inches which will grown to a minimum of 6 feet in height within 3 years. A brick or stone fence would meet the requirements. A chain link fence is not encouraged unless the neighbors want it. The plantings would be on the development side of the fence, leaving the chain link on the neighbor's side of the fence. 7 March 22, 19. SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: $ Continued FILE NO.. Z -4249-A Mr. Simmons said that, at the neighborhood meeting, the neighbors had said that they did not want a wood fence; that they wanted to be able to see through it. They had wanted a chain link fence with evergreen plantings. After that meeting, Ms. White had Proposed a wrought iron fence with brick columns every 30 feet. The developer, Mr. Simmons concluded, could not afford such a fence, and asks that it not be required: The developer, he said, would build either a wood or chain link fence, as preferred by the neighbors. Commissioner Oleson asked for clarifiction on the status' -of the three -residential lots on Hughes Street which are owned by the developer. Staff reported that the three lots are not included in the preliminary plat area or the POD area; that they remain as residential lots in the abutting subdivision. Ralph White asked to address the Commission. He indicated that he is the husband of Chris White. He complained that the entire neighborhood is not affected by the proposed development; but that only 3 or 4 homes are affected; that it does not matter what the entire neighborhood wants, but what those directly affected want. He continued that he and his wife were adamant that they do not want a chain link fence; that the developer should be required to put up a decent fence that is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Simmons replied that the developers want to build a proper fence, but that a brick and wrought iron fence was not feasible. A privacy wood fence as required by the Ordinance would be built if that is what the neighbors want. Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification on the project sign issue. She indicated that the plan ghows a 36 foot high sign on I-630, and wondered if neighbors on the project side of the freeway, as well as across the freeway, were aware of what an intrusion the sign would bring. Mr. McGetrick explained that the grade at the point shown on the plan for the location of the sign is 25 feet below the grade of the freeway; therefore, the sign would actually be about 10 feet above the travel lane of the freeway. Staff related that, according to the Ordinance, the sign may be 36 feet above the center line of the nearest freeway lane; the height is not measured from the ground at the base of the sign. Commissioner Nicholson commented that the restriction on the height of the sign needed to be based on the height above the freeway. 8 March 22, 19, SUBDIVISION ITEM NQ.: $ Contin i P,d FILE NO.: Z-424 _p Mr. McGetrick suggested that a height of 7 to 10 feet above the freeway lane would be acceptable. Chairperson Chachere asked for a motion to approve the PCD with the restriction on the height of the sign above the freeway lanes of 7 feet. A motion was made and seconded to approve the PCD with the restriction on the height of the sign. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention. 0 �j