Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4249-D Staff Analysis09/14/94 09:16 FAX 501 568 2220 D. GRUNDFEST CO. FILE NO.: Z- 249-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 residantial 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 FOD area; that they remain as reaidentisl 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 developer$ want to build a proper fence, but that a brick and wrought iron fence was not faasibla. 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 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. �l Mr. McGetrick explained that the grade at the point shown on the plan for the location of the sign is 25 feat 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 neareat 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 FCD with the restriction on the height of the sign above the freeway lanes 8 Q013 FILE NO.: Z -4249-D NAME: Freeway Business Park Revised Long -form POD LOCATION: South of 1-630, beginning approximately 0.1 miles east of Rodney Parham Road and extending east to Hughes Street DEVELOPER: U-Storit, Inc. 6100 Patterson Road Little Rock, AR 72209 AREA: 12.69 Acres CURRENT ZONING NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 WE ALLOWED USES: Office PROPOSED ZONING: Revised POD FNGINFFR- White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USE: Commercial and Office VARIAN CESMAIVERS 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 office/commercial buildings 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 Neighborhood Association. These criteria were included in a letter dated May 3, 1994 and were accepted by the Board of Directors as components of the development and outlined terms and uses for the site. On July 18, 2000 the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 18,312 approving a revision to the previously approved POD to allow the mini -warehouse development to FILE NO.: Z -4249-D expand onto Lots 6 and 7 and the construction of a commercialloffice building on Lot 5. As approved (May 3, 1994) 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 July 18, 2000 proposal included the construction of five (5) new warehouse buildings on Lots 6 and 7 for a total of 41,075 square feet and the construction of a 13,941 square foot commercial/office building on Lot 5. Lots 6 and 7 now contain three warehouse buildings for a total of 43,125 square feet and the proposed commercial/office building (with 47 parking spaces) has not been constructed on Lot 5. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved POD, removing the proposed commercial/office use, to allow the construction of three (3) mini - warehouse buildings on Lot 5 (totaling 22,860 square feet). Access to.the property will remain from a single cul-de-sac extending from Rodney Parham Road, (Freeway Drive). The original proposal included a mix of selected uses in the 0-3, General Office District, and certain specified uses in the 1-1, Industrial Park District. The following indicates the existing and proposed lot uses: Lot Existin Use S . Ft. Proposed Use Sq. Ft. 4 Medical Office/Clinic 14,000 Medical Office/Clinic 14,000 5 Unimproved 0 Mini -warehouse 22,860 6 & 7 Mini -warehouse 43,125 Mini -warehouse 43,125 81 Mini -Warehouse 72,537 Mini -Warehouse 72,537 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is an existing mini -warehouse complex on a portion of the property and an office building at the southwest corner of the development. Lot 5 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. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The University Park and the Briarwood Neighborhood Associations and the Apache Crime Watch along with all residents within 300 feet of the site and all property owners within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. As of this writing staff has not received any comment from the neighborhood. K FILE NO.: Z -4249-D D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available not adversely affected. ENTERGY: Approved as submitted. ARKLA: Approved as submitted. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. Water: The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant (s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant (s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional details at 918-3752. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: Site is located near Bus Route # 3 and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. F. ISSUES/TECH N ICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Boyle Park Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision of an existing Planned Office Development for new mini - warehouse buildings. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: The proposed plan does not allow for the thirty (30) foot wide landscape buffer required when adjacent to expressways. This is a requirement of both the Zoning and Landscape Ordinances. A variance from the Landscape Ordinance will require City Beautiful Commission approval. The existing pine trees are needed to help screen the site from Interstate 630. K FILE NO.: Z -4249-D Building Codes: No comment received. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: May 30, 2002 The applicant was not present. Staff briefly described the item indicating there were a few items needed on the proposed site plan (paved areas, dimension of buildings, building setbacks from property lines). Staff stated they would contact the applicant and work to resolve the issues prior to the Commission meeting. After the discussion, the Committee then forwarded the revised POD to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has indicated the hours of operation to be 7:00 am to 7:00 pm seven days per week. The mini -warehouse facility may be accessed twenty-four (24) hours a day. The applicant has stated the parking area and "drive -around" are similar to the previously approve design (July, 2000) for the office/commercial building. The previously approved POD allowed for approximately fifteen (15) feet of landscaped area along the north property line, adjacent to 1-630, the freeway entrance ramp and the development. The current proposal only allows for approximately five (5) feet of landscaping. The original proposal included a Planned Office Development to be constructed on this 12.8 acre site or six lots. The applicant proposed "a well -landscaped, attractive setting for businesses that need good access and exposure on 1-630". The original proposal included the construction of mini -warehouse on Lots 8 and 9 and selected 0-3 and 1-1 uses to be constructed on Lots 4 — 7. With the original application a mix of office/commercial and industrial uses were proposed for the remainder. of the lots. The applicant revised the planned development in July of 2000, removing the office/commercial aspect from the development for Lots 6 and 7. The revision included the construction of three additional mini - warehouse buildings on these two lots and an office/commercial building was proposed for Lot 5. The applicant is now requesting Lot 5 be approved for construction of mini - warehouse buildings. With this revision the entire aspect of the planned development is changed. Only one lot of the six lots has had an office building constructed on it. The original development, approved in 1994, called for construction of mini -warehouse on two of the six lots and office/commercial buildings on the remainder. The bulk of the site is contained in Lots 8 and 9 (just over 11 acres of the 12.69 acre site), which in the original approval included mini - warehouse. With the subsequent revision there are only two lots remaining for 4 FILE NO.: Z -4249-D uses other than mini -warehouse, Lot 4, on which an office building has been constructed and Lot 5 which remains vacant. Should this request be approved the site will only have had 0.45 acres dedicated to office/commercial uses. This is a relatively small amount of land being developed as office/commercial uses when in the beginning approximately 1.5 acres was dedicated to office/commercial type uses. Staff is not supportive of the requested revision to the Planned Office Development. Although industrial uses and commercial uses were approved for the site, the intent was a mixed use development. The land use buffer has been reduced to less than five (5) feet and the use mix has become primarily industrial. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the proposed revision to the POD. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 20, 2002) Harry Hamlin was present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the August 8, 2002 Public Hearing. Staff stated the applicant had not made the request in the time- frame required by the Planning Commission By -Laws and the action would require a waiver of the By -Laws. Staff recommended the item be deferred to the August 8, 2002 Public Hearing to allow the applicant to work with staff to try and resolve the technical issues associated with the Staff's recommendation of denial. There was no further discussion. A motion was made to waive the By -Laws. The motion passed 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 vacant position. A motion was the made to place the item on the consent agenda for deferral. This motion also passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 vacant position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 8, 2002) Mr. Joe White and Mr. Jack Grunfest were present representing the application. There was one objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated there were technical issues related to landscaping in which the applicant would be required to obtain variance approval from the City Beautiful Commission (for the reduced landscaping along the 1-630 side of the project). Staff also stated the previous plan indicated reduced landscaping in this area but the Landscape Ordinance was not in place at the time of approval. 5 FILE NO.: Z -4249-D Staff stated the primary reason for denial was the use issue. Staff stated the applicant had represented the original application as a Planned Office Development which had become a mini -warehouse development. Ms. Ruth Bell spoke in opposition of the proposed change. She stated this was a case of developers starting with a mixed-use development and later nibbling away at the mix. She stated there was very little left of the office component of the development. Mr. Joe White addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the applicant had been working for the past four to five years trying to market the site as office and the office market was not there. He stated this was the last lot to develop so the applicant would not be back requesting an additional changes. He stated the site was a mixed-use development, since one office building had been constructed. Mr. White stated he would like to remind the Commission the Future Land Use Plan indicated Commercial for the site. There was some general discussion concerning the development and the use proposed. Commissioners stated they felt the applicant had done a good job with the development and the neighborhood was in support of the proposed development. A motion was made to approve the revision to the Planned Development as submitted. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 vacant position. C:1 09/14/94 09:16 FAX 501 568 2220 D. GRUNDFEST CO. FILE ]SAME: FREEWAY HOSXNESS PARR -- LONG-FORX PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT 1,C) -ZL2DN: South of 2-630, begir-ring approximately 0.1 mile eget of Rodney Parham Read and extending east to Hughes Street D LOVER• E�INE,ER- I'REEWAY 2NVESTMENW COMPANY mcaRTRICK ENGINEERING 620 w_ 3rd. St., Suite 210 11225 Huron Lane, suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72211 374-5417 223-9900 12.8 ACRES N47MBER OF i 2_TS : 6 FT_ N W STIZRRT a 1000 .[y� NYNG: C-3 to POD pL_ UT R 5TH: 10 GENS TRACT: 21.01 VARTANC12S RE QE Mp : PROPOSEn USES: None offices and Commercial �,. waiver from the Master Street Plan dud Subdivision Regulations which requires a minimum street right-of-way of GO feet to permit dedication of a 50 foot richt-of-way. 1@006 2. Waiver frora the Master Street Flan and subdivision Regulations which requires a sidewalk ou botn side of a commercial street to permit the coa5tructxan of a sidewalk on one side OnIY- 3. variance from the Subdivision Regulation which restricts the length of a cul-de-sac to 1,000 feet to pa=it the cul-de-sac to be 1,700 feet in length. gZATEIMyT OF PR POSA.L s The applicant proposes a FOD for the development of an office and office/warehouse project. The intent, as suggested, is to provide "a well -landscaped, atGraoLi.ve setting for businesses that need good access a.-�d exposure on I-630". Tho applicant maintain!.: that, because of t;he shape of the site, access to the site, and the neighboring uses, the POD approach was chose -n. 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 disLrlc:G, he permitted. Those uaee in the 1-1 district which are rocjuast~ed are: ambulance service headquarters post; appliance repair: haul.irlq and storage CornpanY; job printing, lithographer, Printing, or blueprinting plant; laboratorY, landscape service.; lawn and garden canter, enclosed; Light fabrication and assembly process; miniwarehouse; office 09/14/94 09:16 FAX 501 568 2220 D. GRUNDFEST CO. rMLE NO_r Z-d2dg-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 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 signs and wall mounted and incidental signage is 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 pi.rectors. There is the possibility that a two-stage development will be undertaken, with the initial development involving the construction of the roadway to Lot d, 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. PA P AL RE QRST• 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 X-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 Maven of Rest Cemetery on the south and 1-630 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 1-2 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 [a 007 09/14/94 09:16 FAX 501 568 2220 D. GRUNDFEST CO. FILE NC.: Z -4249-A (Continued) only one lot lies south of the street; the remainder of the area south of the streat is t -ho Haven of Rest Cemetery. Since there is AD 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 antr3nce sigh i.s proposed to be located at Freeway Drive and Rodney Varhamj- orae ground Mounted monument sign per lot iS Proposed, with a Maximumarea of 90 squara feet per' sign; and wall mounted and incidental signage is requested as allowed in tba o-3, General Office District, sign regulations. B. E_ XIraTI—NG C , ITims 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 foot above M.S.L. at the southwest corner of the property to 390 feet at tha northeast corner of the property, or a rise of 72 feet. The zoning maps show the zoning classification of the site to be Pen. The site was approved for a PCD development in 1985, and the zoning maps Still shorn 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 xughae st. is zoned R-4. The property which includes 1-630 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 wast and across W. 12t1L. at. to the south is C-3 and 1-2 zoned property. C. PPNC'MEERIN01UTILITY CORN'S: 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 0 008 09/14/94 09:16 FAX 501 566 2220 D. GRUNDFEST CO. 1@009 FILE N4.: z -4249-A (Continued} water works reports that a water main extension will be recliAxed_ An aoreage charge of *150.0D per acre applies in addition to the normal charges_ on -sato 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 areae and the buildings they serve. A 6 feat 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 Polder & 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. 2 SCFE S LEGAL TZCHNI r section 31-202, Dead-end streets and culs-de-sac, paragraph (CO stipulates that "Cuts--de-sac shall have a maximum length of one thousaud (1,0oo) 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) -,treat 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 soction 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 as a separation indicator. 4 09/14/94 09:18 FAX 501 568 2220 D. GRUNDFEST CO. FILE NO.:__Z-42 (Ci i The requested uses include all uses by right in the 0-3 and certain specified uses in the 2-1 zoning districts. The 4-3 uses include not only office uses, but many commercial and institutional uses. The 1-1 uses listed are: ambulance service headquarters post; appliance repair; hauling and storage company; job printing, lithographer, printing, or blueprinting plant; laboratory, landscape servi.ca; 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 1-1 uses which are more intense, e_g_, ambulanea service headqua:rtere 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 Rughas Street lots to forestall future drives or access. F. STAFF AEQQbMEIMOZTQNS., 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. 5–U—BDZVIS_ION COMMZTTD (MARCH 31 1994) The representatives of the developer, Mr. David Simmons, and the project engineer, Dir. Pat McGetrick, were present. The Committee reviewed with the applicaantls representatives the list of deficiencies and questions cantainad in the discussion outline. Mr. Simmons and Mr. McGetri.ck replied that the needed information and corrections would be forthcoming. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANrYICOMM-79910H 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 [a 010 09/14/94 09:16 FAX 501 568 2220 D. GRUNDFEST CO. FILL NO,: G -4249-A _(Cont?nued)_ east property line abutting Hughes street and the Hughes Street property, and a restriction being imposed on the location of any future ambulance service headcauarters 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 bulldinge may have to be changed. Daviel. Sirmnvns, 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) tha restriction of uses for the western, -=St 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 crest, the developer negotiated with the property owaar to the wast along Rodney Parham in order to construct a street to the proposed devalopmant 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 d.evalopex noaded 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 toot 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 neigbborhood meeting to discuss the proposed development; that tha 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 chair, 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, electrical shops, and HVAC shops, w rehouses an Lot 9 wa,11 have their acces e 6 [moll 09/14/94 09:16 FAX 501 568 2220 D. GRUNDFEST CO. FILE NO.: Z -4249-A (Continued) _. rivxth and west sides of the buildings; not an on the east or Bout f aces o e u �.ugs. x, Simmons requested all allowed uses a per 2,tted on It e of 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 dual" 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 neighborliood; but that a stone or brick and wrought iron fence would look goad. She complained that the mini -storage units are placed closest to the rear lot line where they can be seen from Hughes St. 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 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 requoot. He went ou 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 daveloper 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 5 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 fih 012 09/14/94 09:16 FAX 501 568 2220 D. GRUNDFEST CO. la014 FILE NO.! Z -4249-A (Continued) 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 ab$tention. 9 Item No. 10 Freeway Business Park Revised Long -form POD Z -4249-D Planning Staff Comments: 1. Provide notification of Public Hearing to Property Owners with in 200 -feet. 2. Will asphalt paving be located in the green space? 3. Indicate dumpster location and provide required screening. 4. Provide days and hours of operation. 5. What will be the percentage use of office/commercial for the remainder of the site? 6. Label Building setbacks from property lines. 7. Dimension proposed buildings. 8. Indicate paving on the site plan for the new area. Variance/Waivers: None requested. Public Works: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: Sewer available not adversely affected. ENTERGY: Approved as submitted. ARKLA: No comment received. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. Water: The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant (s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant (s) are required, they will be installed a the Developer's expense. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional details at 918-3752. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: Site is located near Bus Route # 3 and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. Planning Division: No comment received. Landscape: The proposed plan does not allow for the thirty (30) foot wide landscape buffer required when adjacent to expressways. This is a requirement of both the Zoning and Landscape Ordinances. A variance from the Landscape Ordinance will require City Beautiful Commission approval. The existing pine trees are needed to help screen the site from Interstate 530. Submit 4 copies of the revised site plan (to include additional information as noted above) to staff no later than Wednesday June 5, 2002. June 20, 2002 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z -4249-D NAME: Freeway Business Park Revised Long -form POD LOCATION: South of 1-630, beginning approximately 0.1 miles east of Rodney Parham Road and extending east to Hughes Street DEVELOPER: U-Storit, Inc. 6100 Patterson Road Little Rock, AR 72209 AREA: 12.69 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 CURRENT ZONING: POD LLOWED USES: Office PROPOSED ZONING: Revised POD PROPOSED USE: Commercial and Office ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 FT. NEW STREET: 0 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 office/commercial buildings 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 Neighborhood Association. These criteria were included in a letter dated May 3, 1994 and were accepted by the Board of Directors as components of the development and outlined terms and uses for the site. June 20, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-42 On July 18, 2000 the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 18,312 approving a revision to the previously approved POD to allow the mini -warehouse development to expand onto Lots 6 and 7 and the construction of a commercial/office building on Lot 5. As approved (May 3, 1994) 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 July 18, 2000 proposal included the construction of five (5) new warehouse buildings on Lots 6 and 7 for a total of 41,075 square feet and the construction of a 13,941 square foot commercial/office building on Lot 5. Lots 6 and 7 now contain three warehouse buildings for a total of 43,125 square feet and the proposed commercial/office building (with 47 parking spaces) has not been constructed on Lot 5. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved POD, removing the proposed commercial/office use, to allow the construction of three (3) mini - warehouse buildings on Lot 5 (totaling 22,860 square feet). Access to the property will remain from a single cul-de-sac extending from Rodney Parham Road, (Freeway Drive). The original proposal included a mix of selected uses in the 0-3, General Office District, and certain specified uses in the 1-1, Industrial Park District. The following indicates the existing and proposed lot uses: j Lot ExistingUse Sq. Ft. Proposed Use Sq. Ft. 4 Medical Office/Clinic 14,000 Medical Office/Clinic 14,000 5 Unimproved 0 Mini -warehouse 22,860 6 & 7 Mini -warehouse 43,125 Mini -warehouse 43,125 8_1 Mini -Warehouse 72,537 Mini -Warehouse 72,537 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is an existing mini -warehouse complex on a portion of the property and an office building at the southwest corner of the development. Lot 5 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 June 20, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: FILE NO.: Z -4249-D The University Park and the Briarwood Neighborhood Associations and the Apache Crime Watch along with all residents within 300 feet of the site and all property owners within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. As of this writing staff has not received any comment from the neighborhood. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in -the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available not adversely affected. ENTERGY: Approved as submitted. ARKLA: Approved as submitted. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. Water:The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant (s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant (s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional details at 918-3752. County Planning_ No comment received. CATA:Site is located near Bus Route # 3 and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Boyle Park Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision of an existing Planned Office Development for new mini - warehouse buildings. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not 3 June 20, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.. Z -4249-D located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape_ The proposed plan does not allow for the thirty (30) foot wide landscape buffer required when adjacent to expressways. This is a requirement of both the Zoning and Landscape Ordinances. A variance from the Landscape Ordinance will require City Beautiful Commission approval. The existing pine trees are needed to help screen the site from Interstate 630. Buildinq Codes: No comment received. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: May 30, 2002 The applicant was not present. Staff briefly described the item indicating there were a few items needed on the proposed site plan (paved areas, dimension of buildings, building setbacks from property lines). Staff stated they would contact the applicant and work to resolve the issues prior to the Commission meeting. After the discussion, the Committee then forwarded the revised POD to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has indicated the hours of operation to be 7:00 am to 7:00 pm seven days per week. The mini -warehouse facility may be accessed twenty-four (24) hours a day. The applicant has stated the parking area and "drive -around" are similar to the previously approve design (July, 2000) for the office/commercial building. The previously approved POD allowed for approximately fifteen (15) feet of landscaped area along the north property line, adjacent to 1-630, the freeway entrance ramp and the development. The current proposal only allows for approximately five (5) feet of landscaping. The original proposal included a Planned Office Development to be constructed on this 12.8 acre site or six lots. The applicant proposed "a well -landscaped, attractive setting for businesses that need good access and exposure on 1-630". The original proposal included the construction of mini -warehouse on Lots 8 and 9 and selected 0-3 and 1-1 uses to be constructed on Lots 4 — 7. With the original application a mix of office/commercial and industrial uses were proposed for the remainder of the lots. The applicant revised the planned development in July of 2000, removing the office/commercial aspect from the development for Lots 6 and 7. The revision included the construction of three additional mini - 4 June 20, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z -4249-D warehouse buildings on these two lots and an office/commercial building was proposed for Lot 5. The applicant is now requesting Lot 5 be approved for construction of mini - warehouse buildings. With this revision the entire aspect of the planned development is changed. Only one lot of the six lots has had an office building constructed on it. The original development, approved in 1994, called for construction of mini -warehouse on two of the six lots and office/commercial buildings on the remainder. The bulk of the site is contained in Lots 8 and 9 (just over 11 acres of the 12.69 acre site), which in the original approval included mini - warehouse. With the subsequent revision there are only two lots remaining for uses other than mini -warehouse, Lot 4, on which an office building has been constructed and Lot 5 which remains vacant. Should this request be approved the site will only have had 0.45 acres dedicated to office/commercial uses. This is a relatively small amount of land being developed as office/commercial uses when in the beginning approximately 1.5 acres was dedicated to office/commercial type uses. Staff is not supportive of the requested revision to the Planned Office Development. Although industrial uses and commercial uses were approved for the site, the intent was a mixed use development. The land use buffer has been reduced to less than five (5) feet and the use mix has become primarily industrial. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the proposed revision to the POD. 9