Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4249-B Staff AnalysisFILE NO : Z-424 -B NAME: FREEWAY BUSINESS PARK, LOT 6 -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -OFFICE LOCATION: On the south side of I-630, between Rodney Parham Rd. and Hughes St. DEVELOPER: Mr. Dave Grundfest, III THE DAVE GRUNDFEST CO. P. O. Box 192525 Little Rock, AR 72219 568-2324 AREA: 1.141 ACRES ZONING• PD -0 PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 CENSUS TRACT: 21.01 AGENT: Mr. Jeff Hathaway THE HATHAWAY GROUP 100 Morgan Keegan Dr., Suite 120 Little Rock, AR 72202-2214 663-5400 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: PROPOSED USES: FT. NEW STREET: 0 Auto Paint and Body Rebuilding Shop On March 22, 1994, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on and recommended approval of the "Freeway Business Park -- Long -Form POD" (Z -4249-A). On May 3, 1994, the Board of Directors approved an ordinance establishing the POD, Ordinance No. 16,644. The list of approved uses was: "clinic (medical, dental, and optical); duplication shops; establishment of a religious, charitable, or philanthropic organization; governmental or private recreational uses, including but not limited to golf course, tennis courses, swimming pools, playgrounds, day camps, and passive recreational open space (enclosed only); group care facility; laboratory (no biological activity); library, art gallery, museum ,or other similar use; mortuary or funeral home; nursing home or convalescent home; office (general or professional); photography studio; private school or kindergarten; school (business); school (commercial or trade); school (public or denominational); studio (broadcasting or recording); studio (broadcasting and recording); antenna (limited to no higher than 60 feet); studio (art, music, speech, drama, dance, or other artistic endeavors); travel bureau; antique shop; book and stationery store; camera shop; cigar, tobacco, or candy store; custom sewing or millinery; florist shop; health studio or spa (enclosed); jewelry store; key shop; tailor shop; job printing, lithographer, printing, or blueprinting; parking, commercial lot, or garage; office showroom/warehouse; school (commercial, trade, or craft); studio (music, dance, or ceramics); appliance repair (no small engine FILE NO.: Z -4249-H (CQn repair); hauling and storage; landscape service; lawn and garden center (enclosed); light fabrication and assembly process; mini - warehouse; office warehouse; school, business; warehouse and wholesaling." This list of proposed and approved uses was taken from the list of approved uses in the 0-3 and I-1 zoning districts. STATEMENT OF PR POSAL• The applicant proposes the addition of one more use to the list of approved uses for Freeway Business Park: an auto paint and body rebuilding shop. The additional use is to be limited to Lot 6 only. The applicant states that "Nothing about this amendment would substantially change the overall spirit and intent of the previously approved POD, which is that of a small, mixed-use business park...." Proposed is construction of a building to be 8,000 to 10,000 square feet in size, with predominantly the office use visible from the front/Freeway Dr. face of the building. (No overhead doors are to be located on this face of the building.) The applicant maintains that the "proposed development will be completely different from what is typically though of as a 'body shop'...." The applicant states that the building will be a "handsome" building which will be nicer than the Parker Cadillac Body Shop PCD recently approved. ,it will have all outside storage areas completely screened by opaque fencing and located behind the building.... Odors and fumes will not be a factor because all painting actives will be conducted in a modern enclosed paint booth, and because High Volume Low Pressure (H.V.L.P.) spray guns will be used .... This exceeds current E.P.A. standards." The applicant indicates that the hours of operation are to be from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM. No change to the originally approved site plan is requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQ: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is proposed to add an additional use to the list of -approved uses to be applicable only for Lot 6 of Freeway Business Park -- Long -Form POD. An amended POD is, therefore, requested. B. EXISTING CONTDITIONS: The Freeway Business Park is currently being developed, with site work being underway and construction of the interior roadway, Freeway Drive, to commence shortly. Lot 6, the lot being affected by the proposed change, is an interior lot in the Freeway Business Park. The zoning surrounding Lot 6, then, is POD (except to the north where I-630 abuts). The zoning surrounding the Freeway Business Park includes an R-4 residential area to the east, a cemetery, zoned R-2, to the south, and a C-3 tract to the west. I-630 bounds the site to the north. 2 FILE Z-424 -B n C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Since the proposal involved only a use issue, no comments from engineering or the utilities were requested. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL DE IG : The approval of the original POD was specific in its list of approved uses. This list was negotiated by the developer at that time and the University Park neighborhood to the east. The addition of a use requires an amendment to the POD, involving conducting the public hearing, approval by the Planning Commission, and an amending ordinance passed by the Board of Directors. The Planned Development Ordinance does not restrict the amount of commercial development which can be included in a Planned Office Development. It is the overall character and the predominant uses which determine whether a development is considered a POD versus another classification. The Planning staff reports that, with the mixture of uses already approved, the one additional use which has been requested by the applicant, with the conditions proposed by the applicant, and with the location of the lot being an interior lot, no conflict with the adopted POD appears to exist. E. ANALYSIS• If, indeed, the building is a "handsome" one, and retains the "look" of an office building which is in keeping with the Planned Office Development, and, since the mixture of permitted uses is so broad to include 0-3 and I-1 uses, the one additional use, as portrayed, does not appear to conflict with the character of approved POD. Any residential use is separated from the affected lot, Lot 6, by over 1,000 feet F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of an amendment of the list of permitted uses to include the requested auto paint and body rebuilding shop. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Mr. Jeff Hathaway, agent for the proposed buyer, offered to be present for the Subdivision Committee meeting, but staff related that, since the requested action involved no site plan issues, but only a use issue, there would be no discussion of the item at the Subdivision Committee meeting. At the meeting, staff 3 FILE Z-424 -B(Cont.) outlined the requested change, and, without discussion, the Committee forwarded the item to the full commission for the public hearing. P INQ COMMISSIQN-&CTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff presented the item, and reported that the staff recommendation was for approval of the requested additional use for Lot 6 of an auto body and repair shop, noting that the lot is approximately 1,000 feet away from the nearest residence to the east in the University Park neighborhood, and that the applicant is proposing that the building resemble an office building from the front in keeping with the original plan for the area. Staff pointed out that a petition from the University Park neighborhood had been received, objecting to the amendment to the POD. Mr. Jeff Hathaway, identifying himself as the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He pointed out that the added use is a relatively minor change to the POD uses previously approved. He indicated that the applicant, Mr. Larry Golden, was present and was planning to build a "state-of-the- art" body repair facility. He reported that the applicant would commit to having no chain link fencing along the Freeway Dr. frontage of the lot, but, instead, would provide a 6 foot high privacy fence; and, that there would be no overhead doors facing Freeway Dr. He maintained that: 1) due to the distance and the elevation difference between the site and the residences to the east in University Park; 2) due to the 6 foot high brick fence required to be constructed in the original POD application along Hughes St.; and 3) due to the donation of the lots abutting the site along Hughes St. to the University Park Neighborhood Association reqluired in the original POD, there would be no effect on the neighborhood. He also pointed out that there would be three additional commercial lots between the neighborhood and the proposed body shop site. He explained that from the top of the brick fence to be erected along the Hughes St. right-of-way to the top of the proposed body shop building is a difference of 18 feet in elevation. With a 20 foot high building, the total elevation difference between the top of the brick fence along Hughes St. to the ground elevation at the building is 38 feet. He explained that traffic, both through the University Park neighborhood and within the POD area should not be impacted at all, since no traffic has access to the abutting neighborhood, and the proposed business is in keeping with the nature of the businesses already approved. He pointed out that the approved list of uses already includes uses such as "trade school" and "commercial parking lot"; that, like a commercial body shop, a trade school often has body shop training facilities as part of its activities, and, like a parking lot, cars will be parked on the proposed facility's premises on a short-term basis while they are being repaired. He concluded by maintaining that the original concept of a multi -lot, mixed use business park is not be compromised by the addition of the use being proposed. 4 FILE ',Z-4249-13 n .) Commissioner Daniels asked for clarification on the type of fencing to be installed along the I-630 frontage of the lot, and on the hours of operation. Mr. Larry Golden, the applicant, explained that down both side property lines, a wood privacy fence is proposed; however, because there is an existing chain link fence installed by the Highway Department along the freeway right-of-way, there has been no decision on the type or need of additional fencing in that location. He explained that the hours of operation are 7:30 to 5:30, but that, when there is a need to get a collision repair completed expeditiously, he would anticipate to be able to begin work earlier than 7:30 and stay after hours. He would not, he stated, be a 24-hour operation, though, and he would not have a second shift. He added that the POD already has a 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM restriction on activity for the mini -storage use, and he would abide by that restriction in the operation of his business. Commissioner McCarthy asked for information on the number of employees of the business, and on the method of painting automobiles. Mr. Golden explained that he would probably being with 6 employees, and would anticipate growing to employ 13-14 persons. He stated that all painting is done in an EPA -approved booth which is sealed to prevent escape of fumes. Air, he said, is filtered, and there are no toxic emissions permitted. Commissioner Willis asked for information on the number of cars which will be repaired at any one time. Mr. Golden said that there are 10 work stalls proposed, including the paint booth, and that the back lot should park 15 vehicles. There will be, then a maximum of 20-25 cars on the premises at any one time. He added that all stalls are accessed from a center aisle; that there are doors on each end of the building, thus eliminating needing individual stall doors to the outside. He used in his presentation an architectural rendering of the proposed building elevations, and he and Mr. Hathaway said that the drawings presented are probably fairly close to the building layout, elevations, and exterior finishes to be constructed, and the finished building will resemble the design presented to the Commission. Commissioner Willis asked for information on the ground elevation difference between I-630 and the site. Mr. Golden said that there is a significant elevation difference, since access to I-630 from Rodney Parham involves driving up a significant on-ramp, and Hughes St., at the other end of the project, also involves driving up and over a bridge over I-630. Commissioner Willis and Commissioner Woods commented, then, that I-630 traffic would be looking down onto the site. 67 FILE NQ.: Z-424 -B(Contj Mr. Al Porter, representing the University Park neighborhood, expressed the neighborhood's opposition to the addition of the use to the POD. He said that the neighborhood did not want to change the character of the POD. A POD had been approved by the neighborhood originally, in 1994, to keep from having to deal with changes and modifications, and the negotiated POD uses approved in 1994 are those the neighborhood wants to stand by, he said. He pointed out that a petition, signed by 135 University Park residents, had been presented in opposition to the change. Commissioner Woods expressed concern that, if a body shop is constructed in the middle of the development, then that use will set the character of the rest of the development, and the character will be different from what was originally envisioned for the "business park". Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson agreed that the first use probably will set the precedent for other uses, but he questioned whether a "paint and body shop" is still the same "animal" as what we think of as a paint and body shop, with clanging and banging and beating out of metal. He recalled that, when dealing with the Parker Cadillac Paint and Body Shop, the Commission heard that collision repair facilities are not the same any longer; that parts are replaced rather than straightened; that parts are less and less metal and are plastics, instead; and that there are no fumes associated with the business any longer. In the case of the Parker Cadillac Body Shop, the use was permitted directly across the street from a residential area. He said that the collision repair facility proposed is not the same as what would have been classified as a C-4 use, but rather, would appear, from the exterior, as any other business use which is consistent with the type approved in the original POD, except for the storage of cars outside the building. Commissioner Woods expressed concern that wrecked cars would be parked at the rear of the facility, with traffic on I-630 looking down on these vehicles. He noted that, at Parker Cadillac Body Shop, the cars are concealed at the rear of the building. He said that he felt that the freeway corridor would be adversely affected by having wrecked cars visible from I-630. Commissioner Adcock expressed concern about possible noise from the body rebuilding activities which would affect not only the abutting businesses, but the neighborhood. Mr. Golden reiterated that the collision damage business is different from what is normally considered to be a body shop; that with the advent of plastics, the various body parts of cars are not beat out, but are replaced. He also maintained that the building design will contain any noise which is generated within the building. Commissioner Selz asked whether the overhead doors at the ends of the building would be left closed or open. 6 FILE O.: Z -4249--B (Cont.) Mr. Golden responded that the doors are to be left open, since the shop is not air conditioned. Commissioner Woods, returning to his concern about the visual impact of wrecked cars being visible from I-630, said that approval of the use would affect not only the business park and University Park, but the whole city. Mr. Golden responded that the lot at the rear of his facility, which would be visible from I-630, would not be that different from a commercial parking lot which is permitted, or from a parking lot which is associated with any other business which might be developed on the particular lot in question. Mr. Hathaway reviewed the list of possible uses which was approved in the POD, and said that such uses as a lawn and garden center, schools, light fabrication and process business, warehouse, etc., would have the same visual impact as the proposed collision repair facility. Mr. John Talley, a member of the University Park neighborhood association, spoke in opposition to the amended POD, saying that this change will lead to other changes. Mr. Hathaway pointed out that the Freeway Business Park developer is the proposed seller of the lot to Mr. Golden, and that the developer will still be trying to sell the other lots in the development; that it would not be in the developer's best interests to box himself in to selling a lot for a use which would restrict viable sales to other buyers; and, that the developer is very comfortable with the compatibility of Mr. Golden's use to other uses of the remaining lots. Commissioner Chachere expressed concern that those in cars on I- 630, albeit not necessarily drivers of vehicles, would be looking down on damaged and wrecked cars, and, with the possibility of a trade embargo with Japan, cars might have to wait for repair parts for extended periods of time. Mr. Golden responded that the storage of vehicles to be repaired is for short-term storage only. He said that a fence could not be built tall enough to completely shield the view of the rear of the lot from I-630, but that there is a row of trees which acts as a partial screen at this time, especially in this time of year. He offered to plant additional trees along the I-630 right-of-way line. Mr. Hathaway expressed the opinion that, due to the location of the traffic lanes on I-630 and the height of the embankment dropping off from the interstate, that the view from the interstate does not include the area of Mr. Golden's rear parking lot, but would be to the south of the lot across the building, street, and cemetery; to see the rear of the lot, one would have 7 FILE Nt]1 : Z ---4249-B (Cont, ] to be able to look straight down, and the topography will not permit that. Commissioner McCarthy suggested that the applicant seek suggestions on ways to visually screen the parking area from the interstate. Commissioner Daniels suggested that cars waiting to be repaired be kept in a covered building. Mr. Golden responded that he could not commit to such an option without studying the costs, but that he would be amenable to planting a row of trees along the right-of-way line. Commissioner Woods pointed out that planting trees would not provide immediate screening; that a period of years would be needed to create the visual screening. Mr. Hathaway suggested that a row of evergreen trees be planted along the right-of-way with a spacing of 10 feet on center, with the trees to be 3" caliper at planting. Chairperson Walker called the question, and the motion to approve the amended POD, as modified, was automatically deferred until the June 27,1995 Commission hearing due to a vote of 3 ayes, 5 nays, 2 abstentions, and 1 absent not giving the required 6 votes for against an item for it to be either approved or defeated. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995) The Chairman determined to take this item next in the order of the agenda. Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, offered the staff recommendation and an overview of the status of this request. Sims pointed out that this item is on this agenda because it was deferred automatically at the last meeting due to a lack of votes to either approve or deny the application. The Chairman then recognized Jeff Hathaway, of the Hathaway Group, representing this application. Mr. Hathaway presented his application and updated the Commission on the history of the application, both at the previous meeting and current status. Mr. Hathaway pointed out the several concerns and stated that they were legitimate. He offered that he and the owner of the proposed business would be offering solutions to those concerns. Mr. Hathaway then introduced Mr. Larry Golden who was in attendance. Mr. Golden is the prospective owner of this new development. Mr. Golden came to the microphone and identified himself. He stated for the record that there were four concerns at the last Planning Commission meeting which he will address. He stated that he had provided Bobby Sims with a letter identifying the concerns and solutions and that he had held a meeting with the 8 FILE NO.g 'Z -4249-B (Cont.) neighborhood. He stated that the four concerns that were identified last time were as follows: 1. View of damaged vehicles from I-430 2. Future development of lots in Freeway Business Park around this development 3. Noise generated by the proposed facility 4. Paint emissions Mr. Golden offered a video which was placed in the room system. The VCR playing the video on the screen for both the audience and the Commission. The video basically dealt with visibility of the site from I-430 as well as the adjacent street. He used this video to illustrate how screening fences along the freeway side of the property 8 feet in height would screen storage of damaged vehicles from view. Golden also agreed that the storage of vehicles would be limited to the eastern 2/3 of the premises, which is the least visible area of the site. No vehicles would be parked on the western 1/3 of the premises because of their potential visibility. This would include both employees' vehicles and damaged vehicles. Golden continued his comments by offering a commentary during the presentation of the video. He followed the presentation by offering two additional elements to respond to concerns. These were the installation of a single access door or service entrance on each side of the building to limit the effect rather than having an individual bay door for each stall. Also these doors would be screened along the property lines adjacent by the planting of a minimum of 3 inch caliber trees on the property line. He also indicated that these trees would have the effect of eventual screening and visual and physical separation of this use from potential office users adjacent. He then presented several letters from owners and occupants of shopping centers and areas in west Little Rock that were adjacent to or across the street from existing auto repair facilities of the nature he proposes. These communications indicated that the businesses have no concern about noise or other activities effecting their occupancy. Golden then moved on to address the final issue or concern, raised previously, and that being paint emissions. He introduced a communication from the Arkansas State Department of Labor, which is the monitoring agent for the OSHA standards. This letter indicated that the technical and operational level as well as the mechanical equipment installed would meet all expectations. The communication also pointed out that any emissions that were released would not be of such a level or effect as to cause concern for any adjacent property. In response to a question from Commissioner Daniels, the applicant indicated that if a single tree planted across from each of the two bay doors was not sufficient in the view of the Commission, he would be happy to increase that number to 2, 3 or 9 FILE W 'Z -42d -B(Cont.) 4 or as appropriate. With that response he completed his presentation. The Chairman then stated that there were two cards of persons present in opposition who wish to speak. The first person to present arguments against the application did not identify herself when approaching the microphone. She offered comments as follows. She offered an extensive history of the previous application and all of the various conditions and arrangements that have been developed to protect her neighborhood, which is east of Hughes Street. (Note: This person was later identified as Chris white, residing at 913 South Hughes Street.) The next person to present arguments identified himself as Mr. Albert J. Porter of 6615 Sherry Drive. Mr. Porter's comments and presentation offered a lengthy history of the use mix and the lots that were committed to various uses and types of uses. Mr. Porter also pointed out that there were certain restrictions by use for certain lots within the agreement that was reached with the developer and the neighborhood. Mr. Porter also indicated that it was surprising to see that the first use proposed here is a body shop which is totally different from the kinds of uses that were in the original approved list. Mr. Porter concluded his remarks and the Chairman then asked if the applicant desired to rebut those remarks or make further comments. The owner stated for the record 2 points. The first of these being that the use mix which was originally approved was a list allowed across all of the various lots with some additional allowed on certain lots. His second comment, that, paint emission clarification by OSHA are what he hoped to reach within five years. The Chairman then closed the public hearing and placed the issue before the Commission for a vote. He began an explanation of the several additional conditions offered by the applicant. At this point, a commissioner asked a question. The question being as to whether this application involves the one lot. A response by Bobby Sims was, "Yes, this use would be for this lot only." Further clarification was that additional body shops would not be allowed within the plat. This is the only lot to be utilized for that purpose. Before proceeding with the vote on the matter, the Chairman included an additional modification by the applicant which was a limitation that no auto parts would be stored on the outside of the structure. The item was then placed on the floor for a vote. This produced a vote of 8 ayes, 2 noes and 1 absent. The application is approved. 10 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED FREEWAY BUSINESS PARR AMENDED PD -0 LOT 6 (Z -4249-B), AND LOCATED AT I-630 AND SOUTH HUGHES STREET IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the zone classification of the following described property be changed from POD to PD -0. Lot 6, Freeway Business Park SECTION 2. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as recommended by the Little Rock Planning Commission. SECTION 3. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for FREEWAY BUSINESS PARK PD -0 AMENDED, is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval within the time specified by Chapter 36-454(d) of the Code of Ordinances. SECTION 4. That the map referred to in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and it is hereby amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change provided for in Section 1 hereof. SECTION 5. That this ORDINANCE shall take effect and be in full force upon final approval of the plan. PASSED: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor