Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4653-B Staff Analysisr 1• Meeting Date: May 5, 1992 2. Case No.: Z -4653-B 3. Rg nest: To approve a PCD titled "Kanis Mini Storage - Short -form" 4. Logon: Immediately west of Bowman Road on the southside of Kanis Road. 5• Owner/Applicant: Harold Smith by Summerlin Associates, Inc. 6. Existing Status: Vacant land 7. Pro osed Use: Mini -warehouses as expansion of adjacent use 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions 9. Planning" Commission Recommendation: Approval with conditions 10. Conditions or issues Remainin to be Resolved: None 11. R ht-of-Wa Issues: None 12• Recommendation Forwarded With: A vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 4 absent. 13. Objectors: None 14. Neighborhood Plan: Ellis Mountain - #18 FILE NO.: Z -4356-B NAME: Kanis Mini -Storage - Short -form PCD LOCATION: SW Corner of Kanis and Bowman Roads DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: UNITED PROPERTIES, INC. SUMMERLIN ASSOCIATES, INC. 1616 Brookwood 1609 South Broadway Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 72206 666-0308 376-1323 AREA: 2.36 Ac. NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Mini -Warehouse PLANNING DISTRICT: 21 CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: This application has been submitted in the form of an expansion of the existing mini -storage facilities lying immediately to the north. The site plan, as designed, will operate in conjunction with the existing mini --storages. There will be open flow of traffic between these two sites thereby eliminating the need for additional curb cuts. The concept for this project is a low intensity commercial development with large buffer areas, screening and landscaping as you approach the adjacent lower intensity uses, i.e., Cherry Creek Addition on the west. An opaque fence will be provided on the sides of property which abuts residential zoning. The construction will consists of five colored, prefabricated metal buildings with 8 foot eave heights. Each building will be constructed on the concrete slab foundations and the drive areas will be paved. A. PROPOSALIREOUEST: This application consists of a proposal to expand existing the mini -storage facility on the tract of land immediately to the south. Access would be taken through the existing site from Kanis Road. 1 FILE NO.: Z -4355-B Continued B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This tract of land is mainly a flat tract of ground with a former residential structure in place on the Bowman Road end of the property. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Provide stormwater detention facilities (3,900 square feet facility shown on the plans, not approved without design calculations and details); provide right-of-way and improvements for minor arterial on Bowman frontage. D. ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL ❑ESIGN: The design of the site is adequate to the site and this proposal. However, the significant issue attached to this filing is nonconforming with the adopted land use plan for the area. There are a number of detail items on the site Plan which required resolution. These are as follows: 1. Structural description should be provided. 2. A lighting scheme for the building and driveway areas should be provided. 3. Describe ways to protect trees in buffer areas during construction. 4. Use nonreflecting materials for roofing, and slope them away from residential neighborhood. E. ANALYSIS• The Planning staff view of this proposal is that the design is adequate for the use and the size of property indicated. However, we feel the proposal is located inappropriately. The Planning staff felt that zoning action would be a recognition of a need to move the commercial zoning line on the plan to the south and extend the commercial activity on the corner of Kanis and Bowman Roads. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff reserves its recommendation on this item in order to further develop the application, the information and our Position. 2 FILE NO.: Z -4356-B Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 19, 1992) The applicant was present. The Planning staff pointed out that it felt this issue was a land use matter. Also, the site plan presented was a good design, given the property access and configuration. The only items of a design nature discussed were the type of material for roofing, lighting scheme for parking and protection of the buffer areas during construction. It was suggested that the roof be made of nonreflecting material and lights directed away from the residential neighborhood. There being no further discussion on this item, the matter was forwarded to the full Commission for resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 7, 1992) The Planning staff offered its recommendation to deny the application being presented to the Commission. Staff stated the proposal was incompatible with the adopted land use plan because the proposes that the subject property as multifamily. The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Hastings and accompanied by Mr. Jim Summerlin, the engineer for the project. Mr. Hastings offered an extensive overview of the project, he identified the treatment proposed for the site and described the buildings as to their composition and the type of roof. Mr. Hastings commented on a statement from the Public Works Department in the staff write-up. He stated that his client would be willing to construct the improvements and dedicate the right-of-way on Bowman Road at the time that frontage is developed. Mr. Hastings presented a copy of the site plan for the Commission to review. He and Mr. Summerlin answered questions about the various elements of the plan by the Commission. Mr. Summerlin expanded his comments by detailing the effects of site preparation; identifying where cuts and fills would have to be accomplished and retaining walls along the south property line. The Commission and the applicant then entered into a general discussion of the mixture of land uses within the immediate neighborhood, including the landscape business and liquor store at the Bowman and Kanis Intersection. Mr. Hastings then offered comments concerning the hours of operation and the manner in which the business is currently operated. He identified it as an excellent business, both in 3 FILE NO.: Z -4356-B (Continued) appearance and operation. In a response to a question from one of the commissioners, Mr. Summerlin stated that the closest the proposed buildings would be to the adjacent residential property line would be approximately 80 feet. He further indicated the top of the buildings, for the most part, would be below the elevation of the adjacent residential lots due to the cut in the western area of the development, plus there will be a 6 foot board fence erected along the west property line. In response to a question from the Commission, the applicant indicated the proposed landscaping would be compatible with the existing on-site which would have to meet the Ordinance requirement. A question was then asked as to whether the buildings would be all metal in construction and if there would be masonry as on the face as the existing Kanis Road frontage. The applicant's responded by saying the buildings are all prefabricated metal type structures and would be similar in construction to the existing along Kanis. However, there would not be a concrete block facing as on the existing building. Mr. Hastings indicated that the buildings, like most mini -warehouse structures will be mainly overhead doors on the exterior sides and would be the view presented internally. The ends of the building will, of course, be solid without doors. A question was then asked by a commissioner as to whether or not the residential owners in the immediate area to the west had been contacted as well as the builders and developers. Mr. Hastings responded by saying they had been contacted, and to his knowledge there had been no objection expressed by any current owner. Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters was then asked to present her comments on the issue. She stated that she found it difficult to support changes in plans which had been developed fully by the staff and the Board through the public hearing process, unless the applicant makes a very good case for his proposal. In responding to Mrs. Bell's comments, Mr. Hastings stated that in his conversation with the developers and builders of the residential area, they had a preference for this type of usage rather than the multifamily proposed by the plan. A question was then asked about the operational hours of the business. Mr. Hastings stated the hours will be 7:00 a.m., on most days, and operate until sundown at which time they will close the gate and lock up. They are open on Saturdays, but closed on Sundays. A lengthy discussion then followed involving several of the commissioners, staff and the applicant. It was determined during the course of this conversation that there were 4 FILE NO.: Z -4356-B (Continued no record objectors, except Mrs. Bell. A commissioner pointed out that this issue comes down to one of land use, not design, which is the particular decision to be made. Several comments were made by commissioners in the form of statements, that, they felt like at some point the plan must be viewed as general in nature, and the Planning Commission exercise good judgment in dealing with these types of cases. Jim Lawson asked the applicant if it was his intent to make the operational hours, as outlined above, a part of the PCD approval. Mr. Hastings responded in the affirmative. Mr. Hastings also identified his commitment to a nonreflective roof structure. Mr. Lawson asked Mr. Hastings what type of lighting system was proposed for this development. Mr. Lawson then went on to say that although the staff's original recommendation was denial. He indicated the concern here is about the significant amount of screening, buffering, the design of the building and other accommodations to the location suggested by staff. He felt that perhaps in this case, the land use plan can be modified and he pointed that we should, in this case, identify the plan as general in nature. The line as discussed previously being general, but not specific. He said the existing warehouse complex to which this will be tied supports this proposal. Mr. Lawson stated he felt the remaining issue here to be dealt with, as far as impact on the neighborhood, would be the lights shining into the neighborhood. He stated that he would like to add a requirement that on any approval, where the lights would not shine outside the project, but be cast downward and inward. Mr. Hastings indicated this could be worked out and it would be made part of the plan. Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters then asked of the notices mailed, what persons were they mailed to and were there residential owners within the required notification distance. Staff pointed out that to the extent of their knowledge there were houses within the 200 feet and did receive a notice. There were about 16 or 17 mailed to various land owners. Staff identified six or seven lots from the notice list that were possibly single family lots with at least one of them apparently occupied. Mrs. Bell expanded on the question by asking if most of the notices were sent to people with undeveloped tracts or did some homeowners receive the notice. Staff's response was they really could not tell by the abstract list, but there were several potential within the notice distance. Mrs. Bell then expanded her comments to what she identified as a major concern, that being her fear that the Planning Commission by its discussion and actions taken here were developing criteria for changing land use plans. The Chairman's response to 5 FILE NO.: Z -4356-B [Continued Mrs. Bell's concern was that the Commission typically responds to actions. If there are large numbers of people present, the Commission will obviously listen to their concerns and perhaps follow their direction. Where there is little or no concern expressed by the neighborhood, then the Commission must take it upon itself to use its best judgment. One commissioner specifically stated that he viewed it as a land use plan of general guideline. Boundaries have been established, but, that, when you deal with specific application such as this with specific boundaries, then you need to look at the surrounding property and use within. The question was then called by the Chairman at the suggestion of one of the members. He asked if there were addendums or items to be attached prior to taking a vote on the matter. Jim Lawson stated that he felt that the several items that Mr. Hastings have agreed to should be made a part of the PCD approval and the motion. Mr. Lawson expanded by saying that he needed some clarification from Mr. Summerlin, the project engineer, as to whether or not he felt the 50 foot open space strip along the west side could be protected against construction immediately adjacent. A general discussion of this matter was held with the conclusion being, that the staff and the developer would have to agree at the time of final plan approval on the manner in which the 50 foot buffer was to be protected against intrusion. It was pointed out that this is an ordinance requirement, and not an option. The Chairman then stated that the staff will respond to the applicant's plan when it is submitted with the conditions of this approval included. The Chairman then asked for a vote on a call for question. The vote produced 6 ayes, 1 nay and 4 absent. The PCD is approved with the several conditions agreed upon by Mr. Hastings.