Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4731-A Staff AnalysisMay 27, 1999 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z -4731-A NAME: Mears - Long -Form PD -C - Time Extension LOCATION: East of Battery Street, at and beyond the present dead-end of West 2nd Street and West Markham Street, abutting the Union Pacific Railroad tracks lying to the east. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Roger Mears McGetrick and McGetrick c/o 319 East Markham Street 319 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 6.45 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PD -C PROPOSED USE: Mini -warehouses A. BACKGROUND: On April 25, 1996 the Planning Commission approved the Mears Long -Form PD -C with conditions by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. On June 18, 1996, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 17,216 which rezoned the property and Ordinance No. 17,217 which approved a waiver of street improvements to West Markham and Battery Streets. According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36-454(e), "The applicant shall have three (3)years from the date of passage of the ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development plan." This includes submittal of the final plan for staff review and obtaining a building permit. "Requests for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission which may grant extensions of not more than three (3) years." On February 18, 1999 the applicant submitted a letter to staff requesting a three (3) year time extension for the approved PD -C. As of this writing, no building permit has been issued for this project. Some site work has taken place within the southern portion of the property during the past two or three years. An inspection of the property May 27, 1999 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4731-A on March 15, 1999 revealed some site work being done within the northern portion of the property, near the Battery Street and Gill Street intersection. B. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the three (3) year time extension as requested by the applicant. The applicant will have until April 15, 2002 to submit the final development plans for building permit review and to obtain said permit. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 15, 1999) Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposed time extension and a recommendation of approval. Pat McGetrick addressed the Commission in support of the time extension. Mr. McGetrick noted that this PD -C expires on June 18, 1999 and that they would try to obtain a building permit by that date and start construction. Commissioner Berry stated that he needed to see the site plan design prior to voting on the time extension. There was a brief discussion concerning the time extension and a Possibility of deferring this issue. A motion was made to defer the application to May 27, 1999. The motion was seconded. Mr. McGetrick stated that if construction is started before May 27, 1999 the time extension would be withdrawn. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, stated that the applicant only needed to submit final plans and obtain a building permit by June 18, 1999, and if a building permit is obtained, the applicant would have two years to begin construction. The Chairman called the question. The previous motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred to May 27, 1999. 2 May 27, 1999 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4731-A STAFF UPDATE: Following is a description of the approved project. A copy of the approved site plan is also attached. The approved site plan included nine (9) miniwarehouse buildings (11 feet in height) totaling 81,450 square feet of building area. Areas for parking were also provided. Access to the property will be taken from West 2nd Street, with a cul-de-sac constructed. The buildings are to be of a split -face block type construction. The roofs of the buildings and door panels will be painted a dark forest green color to eliminate reflection. A number of the existing trees will remain on the site along the eastern boundary, adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. A condition of approval was that the applicant plant a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees at 20 feet on center (as opposed to the ordinance requirement of 40 feet). One ground -mounted sign with a maximum height of 15 feet was also approved. This sign is to be located within the southern portion of the property. Hours of operation were discussed during the Planning Commission's public hearing. The applicant noted that this will be a daytime business, opening in the mornings at daylight and closing at dark. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 27, 1999) Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff gave a brief description of the previously approved site plan for the mini -warehouse development. Staff noted that the applicant had informed staff that a building permit had been applied for and that the requested time extension for the PD -C was being amended from three years to three months, in order to allow enough time to complete the building permit process. Commissioner Berry asked if a commitment was made for improvements to 2nd Street and Battery Street. 3 May 27, 1999 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4731-A Staff noted that the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 17,217 on April 25, 1996 which waived the street improvements to Battery and West Markham Streets. Commissioner Berry asked if the issue of waiver of street improvements could be reopened as part of this time extension request. Stephen Giles, City Attorney, stated the waiver of street improvements is not an issue that can be revisited at this time. Commissioner Berry expressed an issue with over -development of this site. Commissioner Hawn expressed concerns with the proposed development and the current condition of the site. Commissioner Putnam asked what the delay has been with obtaining a building permit for this site. Mr. McGetrick stated that Mr. Mears has been in poor health which was the main reason for the delay. There was a brief discussion regarding the requested time extension. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated that the only issue before the Commission is to vote for or against the requested time extension. He stated that any redesign of the site plan cannot be done at this time. There was brief additional discussion relating to the previously approved PD -C. A motion was made to approve the time extension for the PD -C for 90 days. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 2 nays and 3 absent. 4 FILE NO.; Z -4731-A NAME: MEARS MINI -WAREHOUSE -- LONG -FORM PD -C LOCATION: East of Battery St., at and beyond the present dead- end of W. 2nd. St. and W. Markham St., abutting the Union Pacific Railroad tracts lying to the east. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Pat McGetrick Roger Mears MCGETRICR ENGINEERING c/o 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 AREA: 6.45 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: I-3, MF -24, and R-3 PROPOSED USES: Mini -Warehouse PLANNING DISTRICT: Heights -Hillcrest (4) CENSUS TRACT: 15 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STAFF UPDATE: The application, as submitted, is incomplete, and the applicant and his project engineer have been unable to submit the needed information and the required amended and additional drawings. The applicant has, consequently, agreed to seek a deferral of the hearing of this application to permit the required information and documents to be submitted and reviewed by staff. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) w Staff reported that the applicant's representative, McGetrick Engineering, submitted a letter on March 8, 1996, asking that the item be deferred to permit the applicant to make adjustments in the site layout and obtain information requested by the Subdivision Committee. Staff explained that, because of the numerous deficiencies in the submittal and with the design changes discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting, staff deferred preparing a staff report/write-up on the issue. Staff recommends that the revised site -plan, with all required information, be submitted to staff by the March 18th. filing date, proceed through the review process as a new application, be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on April 4th., and be hearing on the next regular Subdivision hearing of April 25, FILE NO.: Z -4731-A (Cont. 1996. The requested deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for Deferral, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PD -C in order to develop a mini - warehouse project on a 6.54 acre tract. Proposed are 9 mirt.- warehouse buildings, totaling 81,450 square feet of building areas. Areas for parking are to be provided. Improvement to W. 2nd. St., to provide access to the site, and construction of a cul-de-sac at the "dead-end" of W. 2nd. St. are included in the proposal. No improvement to Markham St. is proposed, since no access is to be taken (nor is any access possible, due to the extreme grade differential between Markham St. and the site). No improvement to the north -south alley abutting the west boundary of the site between W. 2nd. St. and Markham St. is proposed. A separated lot, abutting the east termination of W. 2nd. St., has been added to the site since the original submittal, and is, primarily to provide room to build the cul-de-sac. There is buildable area on this lot, however, and no use for this area is specified at this time. A. PROPOSALIREOUEST: Planning Commission review and a recommendation to the Board of Directors for the establishment of a PD -C is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped. The the grade of W. Markham St., St. eastward to the site, is The area of the site along W. C. site drops off sharply from and W. 2nd. St., from Summit steep and in poor condition. Markham St. is heavily wooded. The existing zoning of the site is I-3, for the portion of the site at the end of W. 2nd. St. and east of the north - south alley; MF -24, for the area north of W. Markham St.; and, R-3, for the single lot north of W. 2nd. St. at its termination against the site. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: W. 2nd. St. must be reconstructed from Summit St. to the site to minor commercial street standards, with a turn -around device, in a dedicated right-of-way, at the "dead andel -of-- -the-. street. A sidewalk along at least one side of the street is required. The street grade may not exceed 7%. K FTLE NO.: Z-4731-A(Cont.) will be required around the total perimeter of the site. The Landscape Ordinance requires a 6 foot wide (4 foot minimum, with transfer) landscape strip between all vehicular use areas and adjacent property and public rights-of-way. This required landscape strip is absent along a portion of the western perimeter and all the northern perimeter. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 361-456 requires that a "statement describing the character of the development, and including the rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant" be submitted. No "Project Narrative"/"Cover Letter" has been submitted. This is needed to relate the development rationale and to outline the development plan, proposed uses, hours of operation, lighting, signage, etc. It is a "statement describing the character of the development...." It needs to describe the types of uses requested. (Only "mini -warehouse" has been noted; no provision for an office or manager's residence has been made.) The development schedule, indicating The approximate date when construction can be expected to begin and be completed, and any proposed phasing of the development, need to be included. The building construction type and heights need to be noted. The Planning Commission may want to review the aesthetics of the development as it may have an affect on the State Capitol property. No PCD application form has been filled out. Information on the proposed treatment of the perimeter of the property, including materials and techniques used for screening, fencing, etc., has not been furnished. A general schematic landscaping plan has not been furnished. A topographic cross-section has not been furnished, as required by the Subdivision Regulations. Provision for any dumpsters must be made. If dumpsters are to be provided, the hours of servicing needs to be discussed and established. The Regulations require the applicant to submit a parking analysis with the application, to address the adequacy of the parking to be provided. This analysis has not been furnished. Sec. 36-502_requires,_for,_Warehousing uses, 5 spaces, as a basis, plus 1 space for each 2000 square feet of warehouse area up to 50,000 square feet, then 1 space for each 10,000 square feet over 50,000 square feet. In this case, 33 spaces are required. Generally, however, it is 4 FILE NO.: Z -4731-A (Cont.) taken into account that the "warehouse" parking is provided in front of and along the drives abutting the mini -storage buildings, and only the 5 basic spaces are imposed. If this interpretation is permitted in this case, then, there is sufficient parking, except for any needed parking adjacent to any office or residential use associated with the development. The Planning staff reports that the proposed PD -C is in the Heights/Hillcrest District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Mixed Office Warehouse and Industrial" uses for the site. The request is for Mini -Warehouses. The proposed use is consistent with the adopted plan, and there is no land use issue. The proximity of the location to the State Capitol, however, necessitates a careful review for aesthetics and compatibility. Also, the Neighborhood Association is in the process of reviewing land use plans for the area, and the proposed use may not be consistent with the plan, as adopted in the future. E. ANALYSIS• There are minor deficiencies in the submittal which should not be cause for rejection of the plan; however, the applicant needs to address the cited deficiencies to the Planning Commission satisfaction. The right-of-way at the northwest corner of the tract needs to be shown. Waivers from Master Street Plan street construction requirements for this Battery St. right-of-way must be requested, as must the waiver for street construction requirements for W. Markham St. Any use for the single lot on the north side of W. 2nd. St., at the cul-de-sac, must be specified. Any office or residential use for the property must be identified and located on the site. Signage must be specified and located. Dumpsters must be located. Landscaping and land use buffer issues remain unresolved. The type of construction and the effect a "sea of steel roofs" will have from the State Capitol perspective needs to be addressed. An agreement to make improvements to W. 2nd. St., to provide adequate access to the site, needs to be gained. The site, at this time, is consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan, and there are no land use issues to resolve. It is noted, however, that the Heights/Hillcrest Neighborhood Association is undertaking a comprehensive land use study, and plans to address the land use plan in this area. The proposed use may be inconsistent with the adopted plan after the anticipated amendment. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the PD -C, subject to the applicant making a full presentation to the Commission and both addressing the deficiencies noted and concerns cited. 5 FILE NO.: Z-47 1-A (Cont.) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEECOMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the Project Engineer, was present. Staff reviewed the nature of the request, presented the site plan, and reviewed with the Committee members the comments contained in the prepared discussion outline. Staff noted that Mr. McGetrick had been provided a copy of the discussion outline prior to the meeting. Mr. McGetrick noted that he would address the concerns and deficiencies noted. Staff reported that the Secretary of State's office had contacted staff, expressing concern about the proposed development, noting that the site is close to and is visible from the State Capitol grounds. Mr. McGetrick responded that he would meet with the Secretary of State's staff and try to allay their concerns. Mr. McGetrick reported that the applicant, Mr. Roger Mears, would comply with the Public Works requirements regarding improvements to W. 2nd. St. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION.ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, addressed the Commission and identified the first item on the regular agenda as being this Item, "D". Mr. Sims requested that the application be presented at this time by Pat McGetrick, the engineer of record on the project. Mr. McGetrick came forward and identified the basics of the proposal with its location. He stated that Mr. Mears, the owner of the property, proposed to develop the site totally as mini - warehouses, and most these units would be on a north facing slope away from Markham Street visibility. Mr. McGetrick identified the access proposal to the site, identifying the several neighborhood streets that would be terminated or not opened to serve this project. He indicated that 2nd Street would be the primary point of entry entering from the west. This developer had agreed with Public Works to improve 2nd Street to city standard, curb and gutter and full pavement. This improvement would be carried west to Summit Street. Mr. McGetrick identified the site as currently being a mix of I-3 Industrial and a MF Multifamily site on the northern portion. Mr. McGetrick then moved to his presentation on the design of the structures indicating that they would be a split block or face _type of construction. The roof and the door panels would be a dark forest green___ color. The question was then posed as to whether all oC Ehe trees would be removed from the site. General response was that there would be a severe grade change on most of this property which will cause extensive excavation. McGetrick pointed out also that a lot of the old Markham or 3rd Street bridge when it was demolished was placed on this property and that a significant portion of it has already been cleared. 0 FILE NO.: Z -4731-A ( Cont.) _ In a response to a question from the Commission, Mr. McGetrick pointed out that a number of existing trees and its natural growth would be left in place along the eastern perimeter of the project. This would be along the railroad track alignment and generally screen the project from the old Train Station location. In a response to a question from Commissioner Putnam, Mr. McGetrick pointed out the location of the railroad tracks and the creek that runs through this area. A question was then posed by Commissioner Hawn. The question being as to whether this developer had met with the neighborhood association in the Capitol View area. Mr. McGetrick responded by saying that they had not met with them. However, they had been meeting with the Secretary of States Office. He stated that they had met with Ron Newman, of the Secretary of States Office, at the project site. A lengthy discussion then followed involving the applicant's relationship to the neighborhood and whether or not there had been appropriate communication. Mr. McGetrick pointed out that he had not received any response from the neighborhood from the mailing that had been made and the signs that had been posted. Jim Lawson buttressed some previous remarks by saying that the Staff had provided that notice to the neighborhood association and there was no response. The question was then posed by Commissioner Hawn as to whether or not the deficiencies outlined in the staff report had been addressed. Bobby Sims stated that they had been and there were currently no remaining issues to be resolved as far as design. A question was then posed as to whether or not the Secretary of States staff, in the meeting, had worked out their difference with this developer. Mr. McGetrick pointed out that Mr. Newman is present and he stated that they had not totally resolved the issues raised by the state. The conversation then moved to what type of signage would be placed on the property.^ Mr. McGetrick stated that there would be one freestanding sign -Approximately_15 feet in height. This would be located in the area of the office building in the southern area of the project. Mr. McGetrick stated that, that height would get it above the buildings and they are 11 _feet iA height. He further stated that the sign as far as he knows would not be lighted. He stated this is a daylight operation only. Mr. McGetrick said, as to the size of the sign, it would be limited to that which is set forth by the Sign Ordinance for a commercial project. A question was then posed as to the hours of operation. Mr. McGetrick again stated that this would be a daytime business, opening early in the morning at daylight and closing at dark. 7 FILE NO.: Z -4731-A (Cont.) A lengthy conversation then followed involving the number of issues from trees to landscaping access and notice. Mr. Sims, of the Staff, introduced an item that had previously been overlooked in the conversation. He stated that there was a letter received from the Capitol View Neighborhood Association expressing their opposition. (Ed. Note: Later determined to be from the Capitol Zoning District Commission.) In this discussion, the Chairman then asked that objectors come forward. The first of these was Mr. Ron Newman, representing the Secretary of States Office. Mr. Newman stated that the primary objection that the state wishes to express is the visual relationship of this property to passersby and to the State Capitol grounds. Mr. Newman stated that the state had a significant investment in property south of the 3rd Street viaduct and roadway alignment. He stated that this would have possibly an adverse effect upon that improvement. He stated that the state is opposed to the project even though the Secretary of States Office recognizes the adopted Land Use Plan and the current zoning permit this type of activity. He stated that his office would like to see the City deny this application, but at the very least wait until the Heights/Hillcrest plan review has been accomplished. In closing his remarks, he stated that his office hopes that whatever is developed on this property and other adjacent sites would be something compatible with the State Capitol grounds. Tony Bozynski, of the Planning Staff, then came forward and offered comments about the land use plan amendment effort. Mr. Bozynski pointed out that the staff of his office had been working with the Capitol view/Woodruff Neighborhood Association to possibly make modifications in the land use plan for that neighborhood. He pointed out that there is some discussion about making some modifications in the Plan. Some of those modifications being in the area where this proposal is located. He indicated that the direction at this time is perhaps going to be from the current industrial use to a multifamily type of use. Mr. Bozynski also clewed up the Board of Directors' study that had been alluded to earlier by saying that this study was in an area along the Markham Street corridor west of Pine Street and did not extend to this area of Markham Street. Again, another clarification was inserted by Mr. Sims. This being that the letter that had been discussed previously from the Capitol View Association being an objection. This letter was in fact from the Capitol Staff and not the Capitol View Neighborhood. Commissioner Adcock then posed a question of Mr. Newman as to whether or not it was purely aesthetics and visibility issues that the Capitol was concerned with. Mr. Newman responded by 8 FILE NO.: Z -4731-A (Cont, saying "yes". Mr. Newman also pointed out that Mr. Butch Berry, of the Capitol Zoning District Commission, was present and could answer questions. A brief discussion then followed involving Mr. Newman and several commissioners discussing the trees and their removal. Then a question was posed to Mr. Newman concerning the State Capitol's efforts in developing a master plan for its buildings and grounds. Mr. Newman stated that the plan would only encompass that property on the Capitol grounds and would not directly effect property off-site. Commissioner Hawn then offered a lengthy commentary on how this was his neighborhood and the effects upon it by the State of Arkansas at the Med Center and some other factors. He stated that he recognized the zoning plan in place, and Land Use Plan. This Plan recognized the kind of uses proposed here. He finds no problem with the proposal. The conversation again moved to landscaping, fencing and trees. Mr. McGetrick identified where certain board fences, pear trees and other screening and landscaping devices would be located. During the course of this discussion, it was determined that the spacing required by ordinance was perhaps a little wide. Mr. McGetrick stated that his developer would plant them on half the spacing required by ordinance, which would be approximately 20 feet between the Bradford pear. Mr. Sims, of the Staff, pointed out that the Bradford pears are deciduous trees and will lose leaves during the winter. Perhaps, they should consider a possibility of some evergreens. Other comments were offered along this line. Mr. McGetrick responded by saying that within reason they would plant a mix of evergreens with the deciduous trees. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Butch Berry, of the Capitol Zoning District Commission (CZDC). Mr. Berry identified his position with the state. He commented that a meeting of the CZDC approximately a month ago resulted in a vote by that commission to oppose this project given though it lies outside their jurisdiction. He stated that without a doubt what is being proposed is an improvement to this site. However, landscaping and how it looks is very important. He stated that if the Commission does not vote to deny this, he would at least hope that the Commission would defer the application. This in his judgment would offer some time for his office to meet with the owner and perhaps develop some modifications that could assist in the appearance and design of the project while not adding to the cost. The conversation then moved to comments from Commissioner Putnam and others concerning the relationship between the CZDC and the City. Bob Brown, of the Staff, said there had been a good �J FILE NO.: Z -4731-A (Cont.. working relationship over years. They had worked with us on landscaping issues on various projects. Mr. Brown pointed out that several elements of the presentation by Mr. McGetrick dealing with fencing and landscaping as to how certain modifications need to be made and could be incorporated into the plan. He also pointed out that good landscaping practice would require that the mix of evergreens and deciduous trees be close to a 50/50 ratio. In a response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Bob Brown reiterated his previous comment in stating that it is simply good practice to mix evergreen and deciduous trees. At this point, the discussion then moved to a motion. Chairman Woods pointed out that he would like the motion to include the statement about trees being planted every 20 feet as opposed to the ordinance at 40 feet. The motion was then made to approve the application subject to inclusion of the condition offered by Chairman Woods. A vote on the motion produced 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. The application was approved. PD] April 25, 1996 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z -4731-A NAME: MEARS MINI -WAREHOUSE -- LONG -FORM PD -C LOCATION: East of Battery St., at and beyond the present dead- end of W. 2nd. St. and W. Markham St., abutting the Union Pacific Railroad tracts lying to the east. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Pat McGetrick Roger Mears MCGETRICK ENGINEERING c/o 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 AREA: 6.45 ACRES NUMBER PF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: I-3, MF -24, and R-3 PROPOSED USES: Mini -Warehouse PLANNING DISTRICT: Heights -Hillcrest (4) CENSUS TRACT• 15 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STAFF -UPDATE: The application, as submitted, is incomplete, and the applicant and his project engineer have been unable to submit the needed information and the required amended and additional drawings. The applicant has, consequently, agreed to seek a deferral of the hearing of this application to permit the required information and documents to be submitted and reviewed by staff. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that the applicant's representative, McGetrick Engineering, submitted a letter on March 8, 1996, asking that the item be deferred to permit the applicant to make adjustments in the site layout and obtain information requested by the Subdivision Committee. Staff explained that, because of the numerous deficiencies in the submittal and with the design changes discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting, staff deferred preparing a staff report/write-up on the issue. Staff recommends that the revised site plan, with all required information, be submitted to staff by the March 18th. filing date, proceed through the review process as a new application, be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on April 4th., and be April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4731-A hearing on the next regular Subdivision hearing of April 25, 1996. The requested deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for Deferral, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PD -C in order to develop a mini - warehouse project on a 6.54 acre tract. Proposed are 9 mini - warehouse buildings, totaling 81,450 square feet of building areas. Areas for parking are to be provided. Improvement to W. 2nd. St., to provide access to the site, and construction of a cul-de-sac at the "dead-end" of W. 2nd. St. are included in the proposal. No improvement to Markham St. is proposed, since no access is to be taken (nor is any access possible, due to the extreme grade differential between Markham St. and the site). No improvement to the north -south alley abutting the west boundary of the site between W. 2nd. St. and Markham St. is proposed. A separated lot, abutting the east termination of W. 2nd. St., has been added to the site since the original submittal, and is, primarily to provide room to build the cul-de-sac. There is buildable area on this lot, however, and no use for this area is specified at this time. A. PROPOSAW REQUEST: Planning Commission review and a recommendation to the Board of Directors for the establishment of a PD -C is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped. The site drops off sharply from the grade of W. Markham St., and W. 2nd. St., from Summit St. eastward to the site, is steep and in poor condition. The area of the site along W. Markham St. is heavily wooded. The existing zoning of the site is I-3, for the portion of the site at the end of W. 2nd. St. and east of the north - south alley; MF -24, for the area north of W. Markham St.; and, R-3, for the single lot north of W. 2nd. St. at its termination against the site. C. ENGINEERiNCLC7_T_ILI_TY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: W. 2nd. St. must be reconstructed from Summit St. to the site to minor commercial street standards, with a turn -around device, in a dedicated right-of-way, at the "dead-end" of the street. A sidewalk along at least 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM No.: n tC�nt FILE NO.: Z -4731-A one side of the street is required. The street grade may not exceed 7%. A waiver of one-half street improvements for W. Markham St. will be supported by the Public Works staff; however, dedication of right-of-way, to standard residential street standards, for W. Markham St. is required to be provided. The applicant must ask for this waiver. A portion of Battery St., a 150 foot section at the northwest section of the property, is still a dedicated right-of-way. Either abandonment of this right-of-way should be pursued by the applicant, or Master Street Plan requirements are applicable (i.e., dedication of right-of-way to Master Street Plan standards, and one- half street and sidewalk construction). If no access to the site is to be taken from the portion of Batter St. which is still open, the Public Works staff can support a wavier of the street construction requirements; however, the applicant must ask for the wavier. (The Public Works support of waivers from the Master Street Plan construction requirements for W. Markham St. and the portion of Battery St. are conditioned on the applicant making the required improvements to W. 2nd. St.) Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department approved the submittal. Little Rock Water works noted that a 24- main crosses the property in the abandoned right-of-way of W. 2nd. St., and a 2- main runs on or near the site. Easements are required to be dedicated to accommodate these mains. Any adjustments to the mains will be at the developers, expense. on-site fire protection will be needed. Little Rock Wastewater Utility commented that the developer needs to contact the Utility to discuss sewer availability and location of any existing mains. The Site Plan Review Specialist notes: The areas set aside for buffers appear to meet ordinance requirements, with the exception o the 17 foot wide (11% foot, with transfer) buffer which is required along the northern perimeter. 3 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: D (Cant.) FILE NO.: Z -4731-A A 6 foot high opaque screen, eight a wooden fence with the face side directed outward, or dense evergreen plantings, are required adjacent to all properties zoned residential. In addition to the screening requirement, one tree for each 40 feet of perimeter will be required around the total perimeter of the site. The Landscape Ordinance requires a 6 foot wide (4 foot minimum, with transfer) landscape strip between all vehicular use areas and adjacent property and public rights-of-way. This required landscape strip is absent along a portion of the western perimeter and all the northern perimeter. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 361-456 requires that a "statement describing the character of the development, and including the rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant" be submitted. No "Project Narrative"/"Cover Letter" has been submitted. This is needed to relate the development rationale and to outline the development plan, proposed uses, hours of operation, lighting, signage, etc. It is a "statement describing the character of the development...." It needs to describe the types of uses requested. (Only "mini -warehouse" has been noted; no provision for an office or manager's residence has been made.) The development schedule, indicating The approximate date when construction can be expected to begin and be completed, and any proposed phasing of the development, need to be included. The building construction type and heights need to be noted. The Planning Commission may want to review the aesthetics of the development as it may have an affect on the State Capitol property. No PCD application form has been filled out. Information on the proposed treatment of the perimeter of the property, including materials and techniques used for screening, fencing, etc., has not been furnished. A general schematic landscaping plan has not been furnished. A topographic cross-section has not been furnished, as required by the Subdivision Regulations. Provision for any dumpsters must be made. If dumpsters are to be provided, the hours of servicing needs to be discussed and established. 4 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: D (Cont_) FILE NO.: Z -4731-A The Regulations require the applicant to submit a parking analysis with the application, to address the adequacy of the parking to be provided. This analysis has not been furnished. Sec. 36-502 requires, for Warehousing uses, 5 spaces, as a basis, plus 1 space for each 2000 square feet of warehouse area up to 50,000 square feet, then 1 space for each 10,000 square feet over 50,000 square feet. In this case, 33 spaces are required. Generally, however, it is taken into account that the "warehouse" parking is provided in front of and along the drives abutting the mini -storage buildings, and only the 5 basic spaces are imposed. If this interpretation is permitted in this case, then, there is sufficient parking, except for any needed parking adjacent to any office or residential use associated with the development. The Planning staff reports that the proposed PD -C is in the Heights/Hillcrest District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Mixed Office warehouse and Industrial- uses for the site. The request is for Mini -Warehouses. The proposed use is consistent with the adopted plan, and there is no land use issue. The proximity of the location to the State Capitol, however, necessitates a careful review for aesthetics and compatibility. Also, the Neighborhood Association is in the process of reviewing land use plans for the area, and the proposed use may not be consistent with the plan, as adopted in the future. E. ANALYSIS• There are minor deficiencies in the submittal which should not be cause for rejection of the plan; however, the applicant needs to address the cited deficiencies to the Planning Commission satisfaction. The right-of-way at the northwest corner of the tract needs to be shown. waivers from Master Street Plan street construction requirements for this Battery St. right-of-way must be requested, as must the waiver for street construction requirements for W. Markham St. Any use for the single lot on the north side of W. 2nd. St., at the cul-de-sac, must be specified. Any office or residential use for the property must be identified and located on the site. Signage must be specified and located. Dumpsters must be located. Landscaping and land use buffer issues remain unresolved. The type of construction and the effect a "sea of steel roofs" will have from the State Capitol perspective needs to be addressed. An agreement to make improvements to W. 2nd. St., to provide adequate access to the site, needs to be gained. The site, at this time, is consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan, and there are no land use issues to resolve. It is noted, however, that the Heights/Hillcrest Neighborhood 5 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM ND.• D Cont_ FILE NO.: Z -4731-A Association is undertaking a comprehensive land use -study, and plans to address the land use plan in this area. The proposed use may be inconsistent with the adopted plan after the anticipated amendment. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PD -C, subject to the applicant making a full presentation to the Commission and both addressing the deficiencies noted and concerns cited. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the Project Engineer, was present. Staff reviewed the nature of the request, presented the site plan, and reviewed with the Committee members the comments contained in the prepared discussion outline. Staff noted that Mr. McGetrick had been provided a copy of the discussion outline prior to the meeting. Mr. McGetrick noted that he would address the concerns and deficiencies noted. Staff reported that the Secretary of State's office had contacted staff, expressing concern about the proposed development, noting that the site is close to and is visible from the State Capitol grounds. Mr. McGetrick responded that he would meet with the Secretary of State's staff and try to allay their concerns. Mr. McGetrick reported that the applicant, Mr. Roger Mears, would comply with the Public Works requirements regarding improvements to W. 2nd. St. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, addressed the Commission and identified the first item on the regular agenda as being this Item, "D". Mr. Sims requested that the application be presented at this time by Pat McGetrick, the engineer of record on the project. Mr. McGetrick came forward and identified the basics of the proposal with its location. He stated that Mr. Mears, the owner of the property, proposed to develop the site totally as mini - warehouses, and most these units would be on a north facing slope away from Markham Street visibility. Mr. McGetrick identified the access proposal to the site, identifying the several neighborhood streets that would be terminated or not opened to serve this project. He indicated that 2nd Street would be the primary point of entry entering from the west. This developer had agreed with Public works to improve 2nd Street to city standard, curb and gutter and full pavement. This improvement would be carried west to Summit Street. Mr. McGetrick identified G April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: D (Cant.) FILE NO..: Z. -4731-A the site as currently being a mix of I-3 Industrial and a MF Multifamily site on the northern portion. Mr. McGetrick then moved to his presentation on the design of the structures indicating that they would be a split block or split face type of construction. The roof and the door panels would be a dark forest green color. The question was then posed as to whether all of the trees would be removed from the site. General response was that there would be a severe grade change on most of this property which will cause extensive excavation. McGetrick pointed out also that a lot of the old Markham or 3rd Street bridge when it was demolished was placed on this property and that a significant portion of it has already been cleared. In a response to a question from the Commission, Mr. McGetrick pointed out that a number of existing trees and its natural growth would be left in place along the eastern perimeter of the project. This would be along the railroad track alignment and generally screen the project from the old Train Station location. In a response to a question from Commissioner Putnam, Mr. McGetrick pointed out the location of the railroad tracks and the creek that runs through this area. A question was then posed by Commissioner Hawn. The question being as to whether this developer had met with the neighborhood association in the Capitol View area. Mr. McGetrick responded by saying that they had not met with them. However, they had been meeting with the Secretary of States Office. He stated that they had met with Ron Newman, of the Secretary of States Office, at the project site. A lengthy discussion then followed involving the applicant's relationship to the neighborhood and whether or not there had been appropriate communication. Mr. McGetrick pointed out that he had not received any response from the neighborhood from the mailing that had been made and the signs that had been posted. Jim Lawson buttressed some previous remarks by saying that the Staff had provided that notice to the neighborhood association and there was no response. The question was then posed by Commissioner Hawn as to whether or not the deficiencies outlined in the staff report had been addressed. Bobby Sims stated that they had been and there were currently no remaining issues to be resolved as far as design. A question was then posed as to whether or not the Secretary of States staff, in the meeting, had worked out their difference with this developer. Mr. McGetrick pointed out that Mr. Newman is present and he stated that they had not totally resolved the issues raised by the state. 7 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4731-A The conversation then moved to what type of signage would be placed on the property. Mr. McGetrick stated that there would be one freestanding sign approximately 15 feet in height. This would be located in the area of the office building in the southern area of the project. Mr. McGetrick stated that, that height would get it above the buildings and they are 11 feet in height. He further stated that the sign as far as he knows would not be lighted. He stated this is a daylight operation only. Mr. McGetrick said, as to the size of the sign, it would be limited to that which is set forth by the Sign Ordinance for a commercial project. A question was then posed as to the hours of operation. Mr. McGetrick again stated that this would be a daytime business, opening early in the morning at daylight and closing at dark. A lengthy conversation then followed involving the number of issues from trees to landscaping access and notice. Mr. Sims, of the Staff, introduced an item that had previously been overlooked in the conversation. He stated that there was a letter received from the Capitol View Neighborhood Association expressing their opposition. (Ed. Note: Later determined to be from the Capitol zoning District Commission.) In this discussion, the Chairman then asked that objectors come forward. The first of these was Mr. Ron Newman, representing the Secretary of States Office. Mr. Newman stated that the primary objection that the state wishes to express is the visual relationship of this property to passersby and to the State Capitol grounds. Mr. Newman stated that the state had a significant investment in property south of the 3rd Street viaduct and roadway alignment. He stated that this would have possibly an adverse effect upon that improvement. He stated that the state is opposed to the project even though the Secretary of States Office recognizes the adopted Land Use Plan and the current zoning permit this type of activity. He stated that his office would like to see the City deny this application, but at the very least wait until the Heights/Hillcrest plan review has been accomplished. In closing his remarks, he stated that his office hopes that whatever is developed on this property and other adjacent sites would be something compatible with the State Capitol grounds. Tony Bozynski, of the Planning Staff, then came forward and offered comments about the land use plan amendment effort. Mr. Bozynski pointed out that the staff of his office had been working with the Capitol View/Woodruff Neighborhood Association to possibly make modifications in the land use plan for that neighborhood. He pointed out that there is some discussion about making some modifications in the Plan. Some of those 8 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: D (Cont..) FILE NO.: Z -4731.-A modifications being: in -the area where this proposal, is located. He indicated that the direction at this time is perhaps going to be from the current industrial use to a multifamily type of use. Mr. Bozynski also cleared up the Board of Directors' study that had been alluded to earlier by saying that this study was in an area along the Markham Street corridor west of Pine Street and did not extend to this area of Markham Street. Again, another clarification was inserted by Mr. Sims. This being that the letter that had been discussed previously from the Capitol View Association being an objection. This letter was in fact from the Capitol Staff and not the Capitol View Neighborhood. Commissioner Adcock then posed a question of Mr. Newman as to whether or not it was purely aesthetics and visibility issues that the Capitol was concerned with. Mr. Newman responded by saying "yes". Mr. Newman also pointed out that Mr. Butch Berry, of the Capitol Zoning District Commission, was present and could answer questions. A brief discussion then followed involving Mr. Newman and several commissioners discussing the trees and their removal. Then a question was posed to Mr. Newman concerning the State Capitol's efforts in developing a master plan for its buildings and grounds. Mr. Newman stated that the plan would only encompass that property on the Capitol grounds and would not directly effect property off-site. Commissioner Hawn then offered a lengthy commentary on how this was his neighborhood and the effects upon it by the State of Arkansas at the Med Center and some other factors. He stated that he recognized the zoning plan in place, and Land Use Plan. This Plan recognized the kind of uses proposed here. He finds no problem with the proposal. The conversation again moved to landscaping, fencing and treer. Mr. McGetrick identified where certain board fences, pear trees and other screening and landscaping devices would be located. During the course of this discussion, it was determined that the spacing required by ordinance was perhaps a little wide. Mr. McGetrick stated that his developer would plant them on half the spacing required by ordinance, which would be approximately 20 feet between the Bradford pear. Mr. Sims, of the Staff, pointed out that the Bradford pears are deciduous trees and will lose leaves during the winter. Perhaps, they should consider a possibility of some evergreens. 9 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: D (Cont_) FILE NO.: Z -4731-A Other comments were offered along this line. Mr. McGetrick responded by saying that within reason they would plant a mix of evergreens with the deciduous trees. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Butch Berry, of the Capitol Zoning District Commission (CZDC). Mr. Berry identified his position with the state. He commented that a meeting of the CZDC approximately a month ago resulted in a vote by that commission to oppose this project even though it lies outside their jurisdiction. He stated that without a doubt what is being proposed is an improvement to this site. However, landscaping and how it looks is very important. He stated that if the Commission does not vote to deny this, he would at least hope that the Commission would defer the application. This in his judgment would offer some time for his office to meet with the owner and perhaps develop some modifications that could assist in the appearance and design of the project while not adding to the cost. The conversation then moved to comments from Commissioner Putnam and others concerning the relationship between the CZDC and the City. Bob Brown, of the Staff, said there had been a good working relationship over years. They had worked with us on landscaping issues on various projects. Mr. Brown pointed out that several elements of the presentation by Mr. McGetrick dealing with fencing and landscaping as to how certain modifications need to be made and could be incorporated into the plan. He also pointed out that good landscaping practice would require that the mix of evergreens and deciduous trees be close to a 50/50 ratio. In a response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Bob Brown reiterated his previous comment in stating that it is simply good practice to mix evergreen and deciduous trees. At this point, the discussion then moved to a motion. Chairman Woods pointed out that he would like the motion to include the statement about trees being planted every 20 feet as opposed to the ordinance at 40 feet. The motion was then made to approve the application subject to inclusion of the condition offered by Chairman Woods. A vote on the motion produced 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. The application was approved. 10 -April,25, 1996 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z -4731-A NAME: MEARS MINI -WAREHOUSE -- LONG -FORM PD -C LOCATION: East of Battery St., at and beyond the present dead- end of W. 2nd. St. and W. Markham St., abutting the Union Pacific Railroad tracts lying to the east. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Pat McGetrick Roger Mears MCGETRICK ENGINEERING c/o 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 AREA: 6.45 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW TREET: 0 ZONING: I-3, MF -24, and R-3 PROPOSED USES: Mini -Warehouse PLANNING DISTRICT: Heights -Hillcrest (4) gENSUS TRACT: 15 VARIANCES REDUESTED: None STAFF UPDATE• The application, as submitted, is incomplete, and the applicant and his project engineer have been unable to submit the needed information and the required amended and additional drawings. The applicant has, consequently, agreed to seek a deferral of the hearing of this application to permit the required information and documents to be submitted and reviewed by staff. (MARCH 14, 199.6) Staff reported that the applicant's representative, McGetrick Engineering, submitted a letter on March 8, 1996, asking that the item be deferred to permit the applicant to make adjustments in the site layout and obtain information requested by the Subdivision Committee. Staff explained that, because of the numerous deficiencies in the submittal and with the design changes discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting, staff deferred preparing a staff report/write-up on the issue. Staff recommends that the revised site plan, with all required information, be submitted to staff by the March 18th. filing date, proceed through the review process as a new application, be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on April 4th., and be April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: D (Cont -_1 FILE NO.: Z -4731.-A hearing on the next regular Subdivision hearing of April 25, 1996. The requested deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for Deferral, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PD -C in order to develop a mini - warehouse project on a 6.54 acre tract. Proposed are 9 mini - warehouse buildings, totaling 81,450 square feet of building areas. Areas for parking are to be provided. Improvement to W. 2nd. St., to provide access to the site, and construction of a cul-de-sac at the "dead-end" of W. 2nd. St. are included in the proposal. No improvement to Markham St. is proposed, since no access is to be taken (nor is any access possible, due to the extreme grade differential between Markham St. and the site). No improvement to the north -south alley abutting the west boundary of the site between W. 2nd. St. and Markham St. is proposed. A separated lot, abutting the east termination of W. 2nd. St., has been added to the site since the original submittal, and is, primarily to provide room to build the cul-de-sac. There is buildable area on this lot, however, and no use for this area is specified at this time. A. PROPOSALIREOC7EST: Planning Commission review and a recommendation to the Board of Directors for the establishment of a PD -C is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped. The site drops off sharply from the grade of W. Markham St., and W. 2nd. St., from Summit St. eastward to the site, is steep and in poor condition. The area of the site along W. Markham St. is heavily wooded. The existing zoning of the site is I-3, for the portion of the site at the end of W. 2nd. St. and east of the north - south alley; MF -24, for the area north of W. Markham St.; and, R-3, for the single lot north of W. 2nd. St. at its termination against the site. C. ENGINEERINGIIITILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: W. 2nd. St. must be reconstructed from Summit St. to the site to minor commercial street standards, with a turn -around device, in a dedicated right-of-way, at the "dead-end" of the street. A sidewalk along at least 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVI I N HEARING ITEM NO.: D Coat ) FILE NO.: Z-47a_i--A one side of the street is required. The street grade may not exceed 7%. A waiver of one-half street improvements for W. Markham St. will be supported by the Public Works staff; however, dedication of right-of-way, to standard residential street standards, for W. Markham St. is required to be provided. The applicant must ask for this waiver. A portion of Battery St., a 150 foot section at the northwest section of the property, is still a dedicated right-of-way. Either abandonment of this right-of-way should be pursued by the applicant, or Master Street Plan requirements are applicable (i.e., dedication of right-of-way to Master Street Plan standards, and one- half street and sidewalk construction). If no access to the site is to be taken from the portion of Batter St. which is still open, the Public Works staff can support a wavier of the street construction requirements; however, the applicant must ask for the wavier. (The Public works support of waivers from the Master Street Plan construction requirements for W. Markham St. and the portion of Battery St. are conditioned on the applicant making the required improvements to W. 2nd. St.) Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department approved the submittal. Little Rock Water Works noted that a 24" main crosses the property in the abandoned right-of-way of W. 2nd. St., and a 2" main runs on or near the site. Easements are required to be dedicated to accommodate these mains. Any adjustments to the mains will be at the developers, expense. on-site fire protection will be needed. Little Rock Wastewater Utility commented that the developer needs to contact the Utility to discuss sewer availability and location of any existing mains. The Site Plan Review Specialist notes: The areas set aside for buffers appear to meet ordinance requirements, with the exception o the 17 foot wide (111A foot, with transfer) buffer which is required along the northern perimeter. r April 25, 1996 SSUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: D (Cont-) FILE NO.: Z -4731--A i� A 6 foot -high opaque screen, eight the face side directed outward, or plantings, are required adjacent t zoned residential. In addition to requirement, one tree for each 40 will be required around the total site. a wooden fence with dense evergreen o all properties the screening feet of perimeter perimeter of the The Landscape Ordinance requires a 6 foot wide (4 foot minimum, with transfer) landscape strip between all vehicular use areas and adjacent property and public rights-of-way. This required landscape strip is absent along a portion of the western perimeter and all the northern perimeter. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DES_IGN: Sec. 361-456 requires that a "statement describing the character of the development, and including the rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant" be submitted. No "Project Narrative"/"Cover Letter" has been submitted. This is needed to relate the development rationale and to outline the development plan, proposed uses, hours of operation, lighting, signage, etc. It is a "statement describing the character of the development...." It needs to describe the types of uses requested. (only "mini -warehouse" has been noted; no provision for an office or manager's residence has been made.) The development schedule, indicating The approximate date when construction can be expected to begin and be completed, and any proposed phasing of the development, need to be included. The building construction type and heights need to be noted. The Planning Commission may want to review the aesthetics of the development as it may have an affect on the State Capitol property. No PCD application form has been filled out. Information on the proposed treatment of the perimeter of the property, including materials and techniques used for screening, fencing, etc., has not been furnished. A general schematic landscaping plan has not been furnished. A topographic cross-section has not been furnished, as required by the Subdivision Regulations. Provision for any dumpsters must be made. If dumpsters are to be provided, the hours of servicing needs to be discussed and established. 4 ,April �5, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: D Cont. FILE z -4731 - The -47 1 - The Regulations require the applicant to submit a parking analysis with the application, to address the adequacy of the parking to be provided. This analysis has not been furnished. Sec. 36-502 requires, for Warehousing uses, 5 spaces, as a basis, plus 1 space for each 2000 square feet of warehouse area up to 50,000 square feet, then 1 space for each 10,000 square feet over 50,000 square feet. In this case, 33 spaces are required. Generally, however, it is taken into account that the "warehouse" parking is provided in front of and along the drives abutting the mini -storage buildings, and only the 5 basic spaces are imposed. If this interpretation is permitted in this case, then, there is sufficient parking, except for any needed parking adjacent to any office or residential use associated with the development. The Planning staff reports that the proposed PD -C is in the Heights/Hillcrest District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Mixed office Warehouse and Industrial" uses for the site. The request is for Mini -Warehouses. The proposed use is consistent with the adopted plan, and there is no land use issue. The proximity of the location to the State Capitol, however, necessitates a careful review for aesthetics and compatibility. Also, the Neighborhood Association is in the process of reviewing land use plans for the area, and the proposed use may not be consistent with the plan, as adopted in the future. E. ANALYSIS• There are minor deficiencies in the submittal which should not be cause for rejection of the plan; however, the applicant needs to address the cited deficiencies to the Planning Commission satisfaction. The right-of-way at the northwest corner of the tract needs to be shown. waivers from Master Street Plan street construction requirements for this Battery St. right-of-way must be requested, as must the waiver for street construction requirements for W. Markham St. Any use for the single lot on the north side of W. 2nd. St., at the cul-de-sac, must be specified. Any office or residential use for the property must be identified and located on the site. Signage must be specified and located. Dumpsters must be located. Landscaping and land use buffer issues remain unresolved. The type of construction and the effect a "sea of steel roofs" will have from the State Capitol perspective needs to be addressed. An agreement to make improvements to W. 2nd. St., to provide adequate access to the site, needs to be gained. The site, at this time, Use Plan, and there are is noted, however, that is consistent with the adopted Land no land use issues to resolve. It the Heights/Hillcrest Neighborhood 5 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM ND.: D_ — (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z -4731-A Assoc-iation is undertaking a comprehensive land use study, and plans to address the land use plan in this area. The proposed use may be inconsistent with the adopted plan after the anticipated amendment. F. STAFF RE MMENDATIQNS: Staff recommends approval of the PD -C, subject to the applicant making a full presentation to the Commission and both addressing the deficiencies noted and concerns cited. SUBDIVISIpN_CQMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the Project Engineer, was present. Staff reviewed the nature of the request, presented the site plan, and reviewed with the Committee members the comments contained in the prepared discussion outline. Staff noted that Mr. McGetrick had been provided a copy of the discussion outline prior to the meeting. Mr. McGetrick he that he would address the concerns and deficiencies noted. Staff reported that the Secretary of State's office had contacted staff, expressing concern about the proposed development, noting that the site is close to and is visible from the State Capitol grounds. Mr. McGetrick responded that he would meet with the Secretary of State's staff and try to allay their concerns. Mr. McGetrick reported that the applicant, Mr. Roger Mears, would comply with the Public Works requirements regarding improvements to W. 2nd. St. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the Public Hearing. 6