Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4746-B Staff AnalysisJ. Mee ting_Date: August 7, 1990 2. Case No.: Z -4746-E 3. R.eouest.: Rezone from "R.-2" to 110-3" 4. Location: I-630 and John Barrow (northwest corner) 5. OwnerlALplicant : John E. Knoedl, Carl W. Knoedl and Patricia K. Granberry 6. Existing_Status: Vacant 7. Proposed—Use: Office Development 8. St.aff_Recommendation: Approval of "O-3"equest. --- -------------- J. Pls.nning_Commission_Recommenda.t.ion: Approval of the 110-3" rezoning subject to the following height. restrictions/limitations: Lots 1 and 2 - t.wo stories Lots 3 and 4 - two or three stories, with the larger of the two lots having the three story bu11.dirig. 10. Conditions_ or Issues _R.emaining to_ be Resolved: hone 11. Right,_of_Way_Issues: Norie 12. Recommendation_Forwarded_Wi.th: 70 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. 1 d. Objector -.: i resident. was present who voiced some concerns about, the specific 6. eve! opment, but indicat ed that the neighborhood supported a.n of ice use Co -r the pr oper t y . i N' hborhood "'an: L�+•tiF Rock -e -L -. -------- c v-17jul Z -4746-B NAME: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: PURPOSE: SIZE: John E. Knoedl/Carl W. Knoedl and Patricia K. Granberry The Mehlburger Firm by Beth Zauner I-630 and John Barrow Road (Northwest Corner) Rezone from "R-2" to "0-3" Office Development 5.88 acres EXISTING USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, zoned "R-2" South - I-630 Right -of -Way, zoned "R-2" East - Henderson Junior High School, zoned "R-2" West - Single Family, zoned "R-2'' STAFF ANALYSIS: The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone 5.9 acres at the John Barrow Road/I-630 interchange from "R-2" to "0-3". The proposal is to subdivide the land into four lots for office or medical related uses, with a cul-de-sac serving the development.. (The proposed plat. is Item No. 1 on the Agenda.) Currently, there is a single family residence on the property, with the balance of it. undeveloped. Also, the site is higher than the surrounding land and residences. On the north side of 1-630, the zoning is either "R-2" or "R-4", with the site in question abutting "R-2" land on all sides. At West Markham and John Barrow Roads, which is several blocks to the north, there is some "C-3" zoning. South of I-630, the zoning includes "R-2", "0-3", "C-3" and "O -S". The land use in the general vicinity includes single family, duplex, church, commercial. and Henderson Junior High. A number of the "0-3" and "C-3" tracts are vacant at this time. Adjoining the site on the west and north sides are 16 lots that are part of a well established single family neighborhood. 1 Z -4746-B Continued Since 1986, there have been two attempts to reclassify the property for commercial uses. Each request was submitted as a "PCD" and both proposals included a motel. The first plan, presented in 1986, was for a five lot development with a motel on one lot and the remaining lots were to be sold to individual developers. There was strong neighborhood opposition to the first "PCD"; a petition with over 250 names opposing the reclassification was offered to the Planning Commission. Staff supported a two lot proposal for the motel and one other commercial activity. The request was denied by the Planning Commission and the action was never appealed to the Board of Directors. In 1989, the second "PCD" was filed for a three lot development. The 1989 proposal was a substantial reduction of the development intensity, and had a 120 foot green belt on the west side and a 65 foot buffer on the north. Staff did not support the "PCD' because of the adopted plan and felt that a. land use that was more compatible with a. single family neighborhood was desirable. The issue was finally withdrawn because the applicant's purchase agreement had expired. The West Little Rock District Plan is the planning document for the area, and it shows the site for single family use. Therefore, if the Planning Commission endorses the proposed rezoning, a plan amendment will be presented to the Board of Directors for their consideration. Staff indicated in 1989 that a more intense use than single family was reasonable for the site, and our position remains the same. An office/medical facility mix may be the appropriate land use concept for the site, provided that the development does not impact the residential subdivision. ?Maintaining the livability of the residential neighborhood must be a high priority, especially for the lots that adjoin_ the property. The quality of life for the neighborhood should not be altered by the proposed project. To protect the integrity of the neighborhood, it is obvious that a generous buffer/green belt is needed along the west and north property lines. The size of the buffer is critical and must be done in a way that safeguards the character of the neighborhood by providing the needed separation between two potentially conflicting uses. If this can be accomplished, then Staff is of the opinion that an office type use is a reasonable option for the property. (r A-4746-B Continued The proposed nonresidential use and the grade difference both create the need for buffering. Without a substantial buffer, the development could overwhelm the neighborhood and reduce the livability of the lots. Another factor that necessitates the need for buffering is building height which is unknown at this time. (Several of the office tracts adjacent to the Birchwood Subdivision have 50 foot "O -S" buffers and some have no "O -S" area. The office development at the northwest corner of Shackleford and Financial Center Parkway, zoned "0-2", has only a 25 foot setback and it has been a very visable impact on the residential lots to the north.) Staff feels that to adequate buffer the residential lots, a 50 foot green belt is needed along the west property line and a portion of the north property line. A 50 foot area is not needed along the entire length of the north side because the proposed street is located adjacent to the north line. With a 25 foot buffer and the street right-of-way, it appears that there would be sufficient separation between the residential lots and the proposed office site. (The plat shows only a 16 foot landscaped area within the street right-of-way adjacent to the north property line). IN addition to the buffer along the north side, Staff is recommending an eight foot screening fence in place of the required six foot fence. An office development appears to be a viable alternative if a well defined area is established to separate the residential and nonresidential uses. The zoning Alan and plat have made no provisions for buffers, except for a landscaped area in the right-of-way. Staff is reluctant, to endorse the "0-3" reclassification without some assurances that the needed buffering is provided. The potential for impacting the residential subdivision is too great, and the development must be sensitive to its relationship with the neighborhood. Because of the various concerns raised, a "PUD" may be the appropriate review process for the portion of the site that abuts the residential lots. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: --------------------- I:one reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Reserved until additional information is submitted and several issues are addressed. 3 Z -4746-E jContinuedi—___--__,_–_—_ PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (July 17, 1990) (NOTE: Items Nos. 1 and 10 were discussed together) Jim Lawson, Planning Director, spoke first and recommended approval of the preliminary plat and the "0-3" rezoning. He then reviewed various issues, including fences and sidewalks. Mr. Lawson indicated that all parties were in agreement on how to proceed with the sidewalks and the placement of the fence. Wes Lowder, representing the applicant, then addressed the Commission. Mr. Lowder made some comments about the proposal and presented a preliminary site plan for Lot 2. He stent on to say that there would be a 40 foot buffer on the west and north sides up to the new road. From the road to the east property line, the developer was proposing a 25 foot landscaped area when Lot 4 was developed, with a two foot strip adjacent to the north property line platted as a part of Lot 4. George Irvin, a resident on Deerbrook Road, asked the questions about building height. Mr. Lowder said the proposed building for Lot 2 would be one story on the east and 1-1/2 stories on the west side. Mr. Irvin. also questioned why a 50 foot buffer was not shown. Mr. Lowder indicated that a 50 foot buffer would impact the northwest lot, that being Lot 1. He also said that the buffer should be uniform and there were large trees along the west property line that should help screen the development. Mr. Lowder said the development would limit the height of the building on Lot 1 (the northwest corner) to tvTo stories. Comments were offered by several Commission members, and Commissioner Olson felt that to much density was being proposed for the small loLs. George Irvin spoke again and discussed previous developments for the property. Mr. Irvin then questioned whether a 40 foot buffer was adequate, and said there needed to be height restrictions. He asked about controlling the property with an 110-3" rezoning and reviewed some of the uses in the "0-3" district that the neighborhood had problems with. Mr. Irvin ,Tent, on to say that the neighborhood was satisfied with an office development, and the residents did meet to discuss the issues. There were some comments made about attaching conditions to a rezoning. Stephen Giles, Assistant City Attorney, said the Commission could condition a rezoning and/or place restrictions on it. 4 J • L Z -4746-E Continued Commissioner Olson then asked why a "PUD" was not being used. Wes Lowder responded by saying a "PUD" was not filed from practical stand point. Mr. Lowder said "PUD's" cost money, and there were a lot of cost just to go through the process. Rett Tucker of Flake and Company, the developer, said that Lot 4 would be limited to two stories, and lot 3 to three stories. Mr. Tucker also said this could be reversed if the lot sizes changed. Wes Lowder said that Lot 4 would have to be larger if a three story building was proposed. Mr. Lowder went on to say that the west lots have restrictions and there would be adequate separation between the office structures and the residences. He also said the developer would be responsible for replanting the buffer if something happens to it. The Commission first voted on the preliminary plat for Knoedl Park. The plat was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. A motion was then made to recommend approval of "0-3" conditioned on Lots 1 and 2 being restricted to two story buildings, and Lots 3 and 4 being limited to two or three stories, with the larger lot having the three story structure. The motion passed by a. vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent;. 3 May 21, 1991 ITEM No.: ' REQUEST: To review the screening Knoedl Park. fence requirements for LOCATION: I-630 and John Barrow Road In July and August of 1990, the Planning Commission and Board of Directors approved an 03 reclassification for the Knoedl Park Addition, an office development. As part of the approval, several conditions were made ordinance (Ordinance No. 15,909Part of the rezoning uding for a "8 foot wooden opaque screening lfence"the alonggthe eWest and north property lines. During the permitting process, the placement of the fence along the west property boundary became an issue because of several factors. The property line is in a ditch and locating the fence in the ditch would be a maintenance problem for the city, according to Public Works. from Jerry Gardner for additional information.) (See attached from the maintenance concern, it was su of Because of shifted 40 feet to the east ggested that the fence be owner of Lot 2 feels that a�fencee40efeettfrom uthe rproperty line is somewhat excessive and would not serve any beneficial Purpose. Upon further review of the situation, the staff is recommending that the fence not be required along the west property rine. We feel that the 40 foot buffer can provide adequate screening and a fence would not add anything because of the topography. The City Attorneys office has indicated that modifying a condition in the rezoning ordinance requires action by the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. An ordinance amending the initial ordinance will need to be approved by the Board to alter the fence provision of the rezoning ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIQN (May 21, 1991) Staff reviewed the issue and discussed why the matter was before the Commission. Garland Brown, a resident on Deerbrook, said the neighborhood would like to have a fence along the Western boundary of the development. Mr. Brown said that he realized the fence could not be placed in the ditch, but could be moved toward the new Office building. 1 May 21, 1991 ITEM NO.: 6 (CONT. Comments were then offered by various individuals. Commissioner Fred Perkins said a profile of the site was needed before any action should be taken. Wes Lowder, engineer for the developer, said the clearing of the buffer was for two utilities and the fence could go on the buffer line. After some additional discussion, the Planning Commission voted to move the fence to the east side of the buffer along the western boundary of the development (Lots 1 and 2). The vote was 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. (The Planning Commission's action placed the required fence forty (40) feet east of the west property line.) - 2