HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4249-C Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -4249-C
NAME: Freeway Business Park - Revised POD
LOCATION: South side of Interstate 630, approximately 0.1 mile
east of Rodney Parham Road
DEVELOPER:
Mai'1.,to4141 Ai ii
U-Storit, Inc. McGetrick and McGetrick
6100 Patterson Road 319 E. Markham Street, Suite 202
Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 12.69 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: POD ALLOWED USES: Office/Commercial
PROPOSED USE: Office/Commercial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On May 3, 1994, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
16,644 approving the Freeway Business Park - Long -Form POD. The
project included Lots 4-9 of the Freeway Business Park
Subdivision. A mini -warehouse development was approved for Lots
8 and 9, with an office/commercial building being approved for
each of the other four lots. Certain development criteria and
uses for the development were negotiated between the developer
and the University Park Residential Association. This criteria
was included in a letter dated May 3, 1994 and was accepted by
the Board of Directors as a component of the development. A
copy of the letter has been included for Planning Commission
review.
A mini -warehouse development has been constructed on Lots 8 and
9 of the site, and an office building has been constructed on Lot
4. The area of Lots 5-7 has been cleared and graded.
FILE NO.: Z -4249-C (Cont.)
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
site plan for the development by expanding the mini -
warehouse complex onto Lots 6 and 7 and constructing an
office/commercial building on Lot 5. All of this proposed
development will be on the north side of Freeway Drive.
The applicant proposes to construct five (5) new mini -
warehouse buildings with a total area of 41,075 square
feet. Two (2) new drives from Freeway Drive are proposed
with the mini -warehouse expansion. The applicant notes
that these drives will be gated and only used for emergency
access, dumpster service and large moving vehicle access.
The applicant is proposing a single -story 13,941 square
foot building on Lot 5 with a total of 47 parking spaces.
Two (2) access drives are proposed from Freeway Drive.
The proposed site plan showing the existing and proposed
improvements is attached for Planning Commission review.
The applicant has noted that the development criteria and
permitted uses as agreed to by the developer and the
University Park Neighborhood Association and made part of
the approved POD will not be changed, except for revising
the document to allow the mini -warehouse expansion onto
Lots 6 and 7 and addressing the hours of operation for
mini -warehouse complex. The applicant has noted that he
will work with the neighborhood in amending the document.
The applicant has noted that the mini -warehouse development
will be able to be accessed 24 hours a day. Hours of
operation for the entire development will be from 7:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m., daily.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing mini -warehouse complex within the
eastern portion of this property and an office building at
the southwest corner of the development. The remainder of
the property (along the north side of Freeway Drive) is
vacant, with site work having been done in the past.
Interstate 630 is located along the property's north
boundary, with a cemetery to the south. There is a mixture
of commercial and industrial uses further south across West
12th Street. There is undeveloped C-3 zoned property
immediately west of this site, with a mixture of commercial
and industrial uses further west across Rodney Parham Road.
Hughes Street is located along the property's east
boundary, with single family residences across Hughes
Street to the east.
2
FILE NO.: Z -4249-C (Cont.)
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The University Park and Briarwood Neighborhood Associations
were.notified of the public hearing. As of this writing,
staff has received no comment from the neighborhood.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
5. A Grading Permit per Secs. 29-186(c) and (d) will be
required with a building permit.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
AP&L: No Comments.
Arkla: No Comment.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments received.
Water: No Comments.
Fire Department: No Comment.
County Planning: No Comments received.
CATA: No effect; Site is not on a dedicated bus route,
but is near bus route #3.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division:
This request is located in the Boyle Park Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this
location. The property is currently zoned Planned Office
Development and the request is for a revision of the
current Planned Office Development. The applicant wishes
to expand a mini -warehouse and office building. The
proposed changes are consistent with the adopted Land Use
Plan.
3
FILE NO.: Z -4249-C (Cont.)
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan:
This property is located in the Boyle Park study area where
a Neighborhood Action Plan process had began but to date no
Neighborhood Plan currently exists.
Landscape Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 1, 2000)
Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application.
Staff briefly described the proposed site plan for the
revised POD. Staff noted that additional information
relating to hours, use list, dumpster location, signage and
driveway locations were needed.
The proposed driveway locations were briefly discussed. It
was noted that driveway locations needed to be revised in
order to conform to the typical ordinance standards. Mr.
McGetrick noted that he would meet with the applicants and
discuss revising the drive locations.
After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the revised
POD to the full Commission for resolution.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
June 7, 2000. The revised plan addresses the issues as
raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee. Dumpster
areas have been shown on the site plan and the driveway
locations have been revised.
The applicant has shown a total of 47 parking spaces for
Lot 5. The ordinance would typically require a minimum of
35 spaces for an office building of this size. Staff is
comfortable with the parking plan as proposed.
Public Works has noted support of the proposed driveway
locations, with the exception of the center drive proposed
for the mini -warehouse complex. Public Works feels that
this drive should be eliminated and that other two (2)
drives will provide the appropriate area for accessing the
property with large vehicles. Staff will attempt to have
this issue resolved prior to the public hearing.
4
FILE NO.: Z -4249-C (Cont.)
As noted in paragraph A., a document was agreed to by the
developer and the University Park Neighborhood Association
on May 3, 1994. This document contained specific
development criteria and uses for this proposed
development, and was accepted by the Board of Directors as
a component of the development. Item No. 20 of the
document reads as follows: "20. Mini -storage development
will be limited to Lots 8 and 9. Mini -storage areas will
be secured and hours of operation will be limited to 6:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m."
As noted earlier, the applicant is proposing to expand the
mini -warehouse complex onto Lots 6 and 7 of this
subdivision, with 24 hour access. Staff has informed the
applicant that he must meet with the neighborhood and
revise the May 3, 1994 document only with respect to Item
No. 20 and leave the remainder of the document intact.
Otherwise, to staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding
issues associated with the revised POD. Staff feels that
the proposed development will have no adverse impact on the
general area. Staff will support the revised POD subject
to the applicant working with the neighborhood in revising
the May 3, 1994 document. Staff suggests that the Planning
Commission not conduct a public hearing on this application
until this document has been revised.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised POD subject to the
following conditions:
1. The May 3, 1994 document between the developer and the
University Park Neighborhood Association must be revised
with respect to Item No. 20.
2. The remainder of the May 3, 1994 document will remain
valid and part of the revised POD.
3. Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraph D
of this report.
4. Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.
5. The dumpster areas must be screened on three (3) sides
with an 8 foot opaque fence or wall.
6. No additional ground -mounted signage along the I-630
property line will be allowed.
7. The proposed ground -mounted sign for Lot 5 must be
monument -type and comply with the ordinance standards for
office signage.
8. The roofs of the proposed mini -warehouse structures must
be constructed of a non -reflective material.
5
FILE NO.: Z -4249-C (Cont.
9. The driveway locations for the mini -warehouse complex
must be resolved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 22, 2000)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application, as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
Staff noted that Public Works supported the proposed drive
locations for the mini -warehouse project based on the fact that
the drives would be gated. Staff also noted that the University
Park Neighborhood Association had signed a letter agreeing to
allow mini -warehouses on Lots 6 and 7 of the subdivision. This
letter amended Item #20 of the agreement (dated May 3, 1994)
between the neighborhood association and the developer.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended
by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed
by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
6
June 22, 2000
ITEM NO.: 8
NAME: Freeway Business Park - Revised POD
FILE NO.: Z -4249-C
LOCATION: South side of Inters -tate 630, approximately 0.1 mile
east of Rodney Parham Road
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
U-Storit, Inc. McGetrick and McGetrick
6100 Patterson Road 319 E. Markham Street, Suite 202
Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 12.69 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: POD ALLOWED USES:
PROPOSED USE:
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
BACKGROUND:
Office/Commercial
Office/Commercial
None requested.
On May 3, 1994, the Board of Director$ passed Ordinance No.
16,644 approving the Freeway Business Park - Long -Form POD. The
project included Lots 4-9 of the Freeway Business Park
Subdivision. A mini -warehouse development was approved for Lots
8 and 9, with an office/commercial building being approved for
each of the other four lots. Certain development criteria and
uses for the development were negotiated between the developer
and the University Park Residential Association. This criteria
was included in a letter dated May 3, 1994 and was accepted by
the Board of Directors as a component of the development. A
copy of the letter has been included for Planning Commission
review.
June 22, 2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.)
FILE NO.: Z -4249-C
A mini -warehouse development has been constructed on Lots 8 and
9 of the site and an office building has been constructed on Lot
4. The area of Lots 5-7 has been cleared and graded.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
site plan for the development by expanding the mini -
warehouse complex onto Lots 6 and 7 and constructing an
office/commercial building on Lot 5. All of this proposed
development will be on the north side of Freeway Drive.
The applicant proposes to construct five (5) new mini -
warehouse buildings with a total area of 41,075 square
feet. Two (2) new drives from Freeway Drive are proposed
with the mini -warehouse expansion. The applicant notes
that these drives will be gated and only used for emergency
access, dumpster service and large moving vehicle access.
The applicant is proposing a single -story 13,941 square
foot building on Lot 5 with a total of 47 parking spaces.
Two (2) access drives are proposed from Freeway Drive.
The proposed site plan showing the existing and proposed
improvements is attached for Planning Commission review.
The applicant has noted that the development criteria and
permitted uses as agreed to by the developer and the
University Park Neighborhood Association and made part of
the approved POD will not be changed, except for revising
the document to allow the mini -warehouse expansion onto
Lots 6 and 7 and addressing the hours of operation for
mini -warehouse complex. The applicant has noted that he
will work with the neighborhood in amending the document.
The applicant has noted that the mini -warehouse development
will be able to be accessed 24 hours a day. Hours of
operation for the entire development will be from 7:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m., daily.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing mini -warehouse complex within the
eastern portion of this property and an office building at
the southwest corner of the development. The remainder of
the property (along the north side of Freeway Drive) is
vacant, with site work having been done in the past.
Interstate 630 is located along the property's north
boundary, with a cemetery to the south. There is a mixture
of commercial and industrial uses further south across West
12th Street. There is undeveloped C-3 zoned property
immediately west of this site, with a mixture of commercial
W:
June 22, 2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4249-C
and industrial uses further west across Rodney Parham Road.
Hughes Street is located along the property's east
boundary, with single family residences across Hughes
Street to the east.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The University Park and Briarwood Neighborhood Associations
were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing,
staff has received no comment from the neighborhood.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
5. A Grading Permit per Secs. 29-186(c) and (d) will be
required with a building permit.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
AP&L : No Comments.
Arkla : No Comment.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments received.
Water: No Comments.
Fire Department: No Comment.
County Planning: No Comments received.
LATA: No effect; Site is not on a dedicated bus route,
but is near bus route #3.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division:
This request is located in the Boyle Park Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this
location. The property is currently zoned Planned Office
3
June 22, 2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4249-C
Development and the request is for a revision of the
current Planned Office Development. The applicant wishes
to expand a mini -warehouse and office building. The
proposed changes are consistent with the adopted Land Use
Plan.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan:
This property is located in the Boyle Park study area where
a Neighborhood Action Plan process had began but to date no
Neighborhood Plan currently exists.
Landscape Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JUNE 1, 2000)
Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application.
Staff briefly described the proposed site plan for the
revised POD. Staff noted that additional information
relating to hours, use list, dumpster location, signage and
driveway locations were needed.
The proposed driveway locations were briefly discussed. It
was noted that driveway locations needed to be revised in
order to conform to the typical ordinance standards. Mr.
McGetrick noted that he would meet with the applicants and
discuss revising the drive locations.
After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the revised
POD to the full Commission for resolution.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
June 7, 2000. The revised plan addresses the issues as
raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee. Dumpster
areas have been shown on the site plan and the driveway
locations have been revised.
The applicant has shown a total of 47 parking spaces for
Lot 5. The ordinance would typically require a minimum of
35 spaces for an office building of this size. Staff is
comfortable with the parking plan as proposed.
4
June 22, 2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4249-C
Public Works has noted support of the proposed driveway
locations, with the exception of the center drive proposed
for the mini -warehouse complex. Public Works feels that
this drive should be eliminated and that other two (2)
drives will provide the appropriate area for accessing the
property with large vehicles. Staff will attempt to have
this issue resolved prior to the public hearing.
As noted in paragraph A., a document was agreed to by the
developer and the University Park Neighborhood Association
on May 3, 1994. This document contained specific
development criteria and uses for this proposed
development, and was accepted by the Board of Directors as
a component of the development. Item No. 20 of the
document reads as follows: "20. Mini -storage development
will be limited to Lots 8 and 9. Mini -storage areas will
be secured and hours of operation will be limited to 6:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,,
As noted earlier, the applicant is proposing to expand the
mini -warehouse complex onto Lots 6 and 7 of this
subdivision, with 24 hour access. Staff has informed the
applicant that he must meet with the neighborhood and
revise the May 3, 1994 document only with respect to Item
No. 20 and leave the remainder of the document intact.
Otherwise, to staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding
issues associated with the revised POD. Staff feels that
the proposed development will have no adverse impact on the
general area. Staff will support the revised POD subject
to the applicant working with the neighborhood in revising
the May 3, 1994 document. Staff suggests that the Planning
Commission not conduct a public hearing on this application
until this document has been revised.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised POD subject to the
following conditions:
1. The May 3, 1994 document between the developer and the
University Park Neighborhood Association must be revised
with respect to Item No. 20.
2. The remainder of the May 3, 1994 document will remain
valid and part of the revised POD.
L
June 22, 2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.)
FILE NO.: Z -4249-C
3. Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraph D
of this report.
4. Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away
from adjacent property.
5. The dumpster areas must -be screened on three (3) sides
with an 8 foot opaque fence or wall.
6.No additional ground -mounted signage along the I-630
property line will be allowed.
7.The proposed ground -mounted sign for Lot 5 must be
monument -type and comply with the ordinance standards for
office signage.
8. The roofs of the proposed mini -warehouse structures must
be constructed of a non -reflective material.
9. The driveway locations for the mini -warehouse complex
must be resolved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The staff presented a positive recommendation
application, as there were no further issues
There were no objectors to this matter.
(JUNE 22, 2000)
on this
for resolution.
Staff noted that Public Works supported the proposed drive
locations for the mini -warehouse project based on the fact that
the drives would be gated. Staff also noted that the University
Park Neighborhood Association had signed a letter agreeing to
allow mini -warehouses on Lots 6 and 7 of the subdivision. This
letter amended Item #20 of the agreement (dated May 3, 1994)
between the neighborhood association and the developer.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended
by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed
by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
0
09/14/94 09:16 FAX 501 568 2220 D. GRUNDFEST CO.
FILE KD.: Z -4249-A
NAME:
FREE HUSXNESS PARR -- LONG-FORI�t PLANNED OFFICE
DEVELOPMENT
LOC N: South o£ 1-630, begin -ring approximately 0.1 mile east
of Rodney parhaLm Road and axtending east to Hughes Street
T) XIOPER
IL
P ESWAY _ NVRST1.MNrR CO"ANY MCGRTRTCX LNGLNEERING
620 w_ 3rd. St., Suite 210 11225 Huron Lane, Suite 200
Little Rock. AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72211
374-5417 223-9900
ARRA: 12.8 ACRES NCiiMER of L TS: 6 FT_ Z]EW STREET: 1000
QbNY G: C-3 to FOD pRCpOSET7 USES: Offices and Co=erC32L1
P NNTNG DTSTRXCT: 10
CENS 6 TRACT: 21.01
VARIANCES RUE9TEp: None
1L.V-
1. Waiver from the master Street Flan and Subdi.vi6iOnof-way of
gegulations which requires a minizu-M street rig
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 an both side of a
commercial street to permit the Goastructior, of a sidewalk
on one side oaly.
3. Variance from the subdivision Regulation which restricts the
length of a cul-de-sac to 11000 feet to permit the cul-de-sac
to be 1,700 feet in length.
STAT NT OF pR Pp$ALa
The applicant proposes a poL for the development of an office and
office/warehouse project. The intent, as suggested, is to
-landscaped, attractive setting for businesses
provide "8t welland exposure on. I-630". ,Tho applicant
that peed goodaccess
maintains that, because of the shape of the site, asCc68
site, and the neighboring uses, the. POD approach was chosean, The
to the
applicant proposes that all uses by right in the 0-3, general
office district, and certain specified uses in the 1-1,
industrial park district, be Perm7.tted. Those uaeithe I-1
district which are req�uo�stod ares ambulance earvice h headquarters
post; appliann a repair; haulina and starage companY: job
printing, lithographer, printing, or blueprinting plant;
laboratory, landscape service; lawn and garden center, enclosed;
light fabrication and assembly process; miniwarehouse; Office
09/14/94 09:16 FAX 501. 568 2220 D. GRUNDFEST CO.
FILE NO_ - Z -4249-A (Centinued3
warehouse; photography studio; plumbing, electrical, heating, or
air conditioning shop; school, business; studio, broadcasting or
recording; warehouse and wholesals.ng. The applicant proposes to
erect one 36 foot high, free standing project sign on the
northern property lire, 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 e;ignage io requasted 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 extotdi.ng the development eastward as a second phase. The
plan, at this time, is to either sell or retain and lease the
project.
A. PR P ?iL RE UEST
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Hoard
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 poet; 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, yr 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 mite, 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
im UU7
09/14/94
09:16
FAX 501 568
2220 D. GRUNDFEST CO. 1@008
FILE
NO.:,
2-4249-A
(CQnCinued)
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
sautll side of the street, the applicant proposes to
construct the sidewalk on the north side only. A waiver
from the raquiremenL 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; ono ground mounted monument sigh per lot is
proposed, with a maximum area of 90 square feet per'sign;
and wall mounted and incidental eignage is requested as
allowed in the 0-3, General Office District, sign
regulations.
H_ EXISTING CONDITTQN9•
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 feat above M.S.L. at the southwest corner
of the property to 390 feat 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 Ycn. The site was approved for a PCD development in
1985, and the inning mAPQ still show that designation, but
since the proposed development was not constructed, end 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 Rughes at. is zoned R-4. The
property which includes Y-630 on the north ride of the
tract, and the bridge ramp for Hughes 3t, which forms the
northeast boundary of the site 16 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 acroea Vr. 12th. 5t. CO
the south is C-3 and 1-2 zoned property.
C. Lx�7EERING/JT1:LZTY COM�SEId' 5e
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 31-442, Street Lighting Installation, requirements.
The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are
applicable.
09/14/94 09:18 FAX 501 568 2220 D. GRUNDFEST CO. [Moog
FILE NQ.: �-4249-A C ntinued]
water Works reports that a water main extension will be
required- An anreage Charge of $150.00 per acre applies in
addition to the normal charges_ On -alta fire protection
will probably be re�rufired for some lots.
waotewater indicates that a sewer nein is laCated on the
propgzrty, but that is has never been accepted by Wastewater.
A sewer main extension, with aasaments, will be required.
The applicant can Contact Wastewater Utility for dat.aiis.
Landscape review comments that landscape areas equal to a 3
foot wide landecape strip are required between public
vehicular parking areas and the buildings they serve. A 6
foot high opaque screen is required along the southern and
eastern perimeters of the site adjacent to land zoned
residential. This screen must be a "good neighbor, Wood
face or be dense evergreen plantings.
Arkansas Power & Light Co. and Arkansas Lou3aiaU& Gas Co.
approved the submittal without comment.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 10 foot wide
easement along the east, north, and west property lines.
D. I SUSS LEGAL TECHNI z
section 31-202, Dead-end streets and culs-de-sac, paragraph
(o) stipulates that "Culs-de-sac shall have a maximuYn length
of one thousand (1,000) feet.,,
The Master street Plan, page 9, section 4, specifies that
the design standard of a collector street is the Standard
for a commercial street. That detail, a$ 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 weeds to be
furnishad; the topographic cross saction 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 Diatrict. 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 ds a separation indicator.
4
09/14/94 09:16 FAX 501 568 2220 D. GRUNDFEST CO.
FILA NQ.- -
E. ANALYSXS*.
The requested uses includa all uses by right in the 0-3 and
certain specified uses in the 2-1 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, bueinesa; 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 X-1 uses which are more intense,
e_g_, ambulanca 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 Rughes Street Iota to forestall future drives
or access.
F. STAFF RECDMMENDATIONS :
Staff recommends approval of the POD so 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's at the Hughes
Street side property line.
57MDIVISICN CC12i1TTEE C01Q1B=.- (BCH 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 diBcusai.an outline.
Mr. Simmons and Mr. McGetrick replied that the needed information
and corrections would be forthcoming. The committee forwarded
the item to the Commisuion for the public hearing.
PLA INTIgG CQMMI99iON 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
ra 010
09/14/94 09:16 FAX 501 568 2220 D. GRIMFEST CO.
FILE NO.: Z -4249-A (Continued)
east property Line abutting Kughes street and the Hughes Street
property, amid 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 mites 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 parimetar fencing, Mr. Gimmons
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 developm"t 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 devalopex naaded 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 vn 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 bean 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, eiectrical shops, and HVAC
shops, e
Q 011
09/14/94 09:18 FAX 501 588 2220 D. GRUNDFEST CO.
FILE NC] _ : Z -4x49 -A Cbntinuc�} ..
north and west sides of the buildings; not an an the east or
sour f aces ❑ e uz zags. T. Simmons requested a7.1 allowed
dse a permitted on t a of 9 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 "bio
iixvestmentll for them, and the development must Zook good and be
in character with the neighborhood. She complained that a chain
link fence would not be Lu character with the neighborhood; but
that a stone or brick and wrought iron fe=6 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 fit.
paul bonahu 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 bast 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 privaL-y 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 oa 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
fenco., and that the developer will build a wood privacy fence.
She them 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 umnted 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 izron fence with brick columns every 30 feet.
7
14 012
09/14/94 09:16 FAX 501 566 2220 D. GRUNDFEST CO.
FILE NO.: Z -4249-A Canon Ata
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 Crnmission_ 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 tha developers want to build a proper
fence, but that a brick and wrought iron fence was not feasiblo.
A privacy wood fence as required by the Ordinance would be built
if that is what the neighbors want.
Commissioner Olsson asked for clarification on the project sign
issue. She indicated that the plan shows a 39 foot high sign on
1-630, 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 foot 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
35 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.
VtChairperson Chachere asked for a motion to approve the FCD'with
he restriction on the height of the sign above the freeway lanes
8
�a uY:s
09/14/94 09:16 FAx 501 588 2220 D. GRUNDFEST CO.
FILE i3D._ 'L -d249 -A Caritinued
of 7 feet. A motion was made and seconded
with the restriction on the height of the
carrie8 with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays,
1 abstention.
9
to approve the PCD
sign. The motion
0 absent, and
0 014