HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4765-A Staff AnalysisOctober 15, 1998
ITEM NO.: 13
NAME:
LOCATION•
OWNER/APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
FILE NO.: Z -4765-A
Storm Development - Conditional Use
Permit
501 Autumn Road
Storm, LLC/Thomas Jefcoat
To obtain a conditional use permit
to allow for a hotel and free
standing restaurant on a
multibuilding office development -at
501 Autumn Road which is zoned`0-2.
This site is located on the east side of Autumn Road north
of Financial Parkway, behind Barnes and Noble Bookstore.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
This property contains 8.1 acres zoned 0-2, Office and
institutional District. immediately to, the. northeast and
east is the Birchwood residential R-2 zoned area which
consists of single family homes. To the south and west are
Planned Commercial Developments, and to the southwest is C-3,
General Commercial zoning. There also exists a 50 foot Open
Space zoned area along the entire east and north edges of the
property which must remain undisturbed. To the northwest is
an 0-2 zoned lot containing a construction office in a
structure that looks like a single family home.
The proposed development of this site is very intense with
three different separate types of facilities and uses,
office, hotel, and restaurant. Staff is of the opinion that
putting all three uses to the degree shown on this site in
such close proximity to the residential area,is not a
compatible or wise use of this site.
The Birchwood Neighborhood Association was notified of the
public hearing.
October 15, 1998
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 Cont. FILE NO.: Z --4765-A
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
There is one entrance/exit drive into the site approximately
midway along the Autumn Road street frontage with interior
drives and parking areas immediately adjacent to at least
two sides, and sometimes three sides, of each building.
There are 286 required parking spaces for this development
and approximately 310 are provided.
4. Screening and Buffers:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance.requirements.
If dumpsters are to be used, their locations must be shown
and they must be screened on three sides to a height of 8
feet.
It will be necessary to keep the 50 foot wide open space
buffer area along the eastern perimeter in its natural
state, undisturbed. A plan for its protection must be filed
with the building permit request.
Since the property to the east is zoned residential, a 6
foot high opaque screen is required. This screen may be a
wooden fence with its face side directed outward or dense
evergreen plantings. Since the elevation of this property
varies so much, it will be necessary to provide cross
sections showing proposed landscaping treatments or methods.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends saving as many
trees as feasible.
Prior to a construction permit, detailed landscape plans
must be submitted and approved.
5. Public works Comments:
1. Autumn Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
collector street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
2. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master
Street Plan). Construct full street improvement to
these streets including 5 -foot sidewalk with planned
development to provide adequate access to this property
including right turn lane as per Sec. 31-210.
3. Raise sag curve and contribute 100% of culvert crossing
to accommodate storm drainage.
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
2
October 15, 1998
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4765-A
5. Stormwater detention Ordinance applies to this property.
6. Easements for.proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
7. One driveway 40 feet maximum is allowed by Ordinance
30-43.
8. Provide traffic impact study for Traffic Engineering
review.
9. Remove retaining wall from drainage easement.
10. Improve drainage channel from Autumn Road to Birchwood
and make improved connection to existing headwall
constructed south of Birchwood.
11. Grading Plan required with cross section of cuts.
6. utility and Fire Department Comments:
Water: On site fire protection will be required. RPZ
backflow prevention will be required on domestic service
prior to the first outlet for any three story building.
Wastewater: Sewer main relocation required prior to
construction of this project. No retaining wall
structure may be constructed within existing sewer main
easement. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for
details.
Southwestern Bell: Easements of 10 feet required along the
east and north and 7.5 feet along the.south sides of the
property. The City's position is that these easements
should not be in an OS zoned area.
ARKLA: No Comments received.
Entergy: No Comments received.
Fire Department: More fire hydrants are needed, some
drives are too long. Contact Dennis Free at Fire
Department 918-3752.
LATA: This site is on CATA bus route #5.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a
stand-alone restaurant and hotel to be located on this
Autumn Road 0-2 zoned, 8.1 acre site along with three office
buildings. The name of the development is the "Wingate
Center." Currently, the property is densely covered with
trees and is steeply sloped. The grade drops approximately
70 feet from the southeast to the northwest.
This is the last of the open land which formed a U -shape
around the residential area on Springwood Drive. The
3
October 15, 1998
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 13 (Cont.) FILE NO. Z -4765-A
general surrounding area is heavily developed with a mixture
of office and commercial uses adjacent to, and partially•
surrounding the Birchwood residential area. That inplace
development already includes hotels, restaurants and
offices.
The three office buildings on this site will each be two
story and be located along the east half of the site.-fihe
restaurant will be one story and be located in the northwest
corner, while the three story hotel will take up the
southwest quarter. The developer has stated that the
purpose of the hotel and restaurant is to primarily support
the office buildings and that every effort will be taken -to
prevent the site from being an "Audible or visible nuisance
to the neighboring residential developments" and "be
.minimally noticeable to the residences once completed." The
planned hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday for the offices, 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily for
the restaurant, and a 24 hour every day hotel desk
operation.
All setback and height ordinance requirements have been
met, as well as the parking requirements. The applicant is
requesting two ground or freestanding signs, one monument
style for the hotel and restaurant, and one for the office
buildings to be mounted on the retaining wall near the
entrance. The sign ordinance does not permit such signs and
some other option should be considered. A variance would be
required for the second ground sign to include mounting it
on the retaining wall. Office zoning limits signs to 64
square feet in size, six feet in height, and one per street
frontage. The ordinance intent is to have one sign per
office complex. Staff does not support a variance for a
second sign, particularly in light of the main purpose of
the hotel and restaurant being to support the offices.
The staff feels that this site development does not meet the
ordinance intended 0-2 zoning primary characteristics of
"low intensity of land usage and a park -like setting."
While the physical land area coverage by buildings is indeed
less than the 40% maximum, the intent of low intensity is
broken by there being three separate stand-alone uses, two
of which are not permitted by right. In addition, the
amount of paved areas in close proximity to the buildings,
and chopped up nature of the site caused by the required
terracing due to the slope, prevent the park -like setting
desired in 0-2 zoning.
Furthermore, staff believes that the intent of 0-2 zoning to
have limited retail and service uses as accessory use to the
principal use is also not being met by this development.
4
October 15, 1998
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4765-A
Staff feels that a 100 room hotel and a stand-alone
restaurant exceed the intended limitation.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of this conditional use permit
because it is believed that this development does not meet
the primary characteristics for 0-2 zoning of low intensity
of land usage, a park -like setting, and limited retail and
service use as accessories to the principal use.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 24, 1998)
Thomas Jefcoat and Charles Barnett were present, representing the
application. Staff gave a description of the proposal and showed
the drawings provided by the applicant.
The applicant presented a revised third page to their drawings
and the accompanying cross section drawing to show two views of
the final grade. The Committee asked that the applicant add to
those cross sections the existing contour line.
Most of the staff review comments were covered with particular
emphasis given to Public Works, Utilities, Fire Department,
Landscaping and Buffer Comments. A lengthy discussion ensued,
asking and answering several questions. Staff also re-emphasized
that the OS Zone was to remain undisturbed and a plan showing how
that would be accomplished would be required and filed with the
building permit request. Required changes/additions to the site
plan and open questions that needed to be answered were
specified. Submittal deadlines were set. Applicant was asked to
ensure that dumpster pick-ups be limited to daylight hours Monday
through Friday.
There being no further issues, the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(OCTOBER 15, 1998)
Jerry Larkowski, agent for Storm Development; Thomas Jefcoat,
project manager; and Charles Barnett were present representing
the applicant. There were twelve objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation for denial because it is
believed that this development does not meet the primary
characteristics for 0-2 zoning of low intensity land usage, a
park -like setting, and limited retail and service use as
accessories to the principal use.
5
October 15, 1998
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4765-A
Mr. Larkowski explained in detail the proposal and the
considerations made in the design and layout. He also explained
that they did look at impacts on the area and traffic.
Mr. Jefcoat explained in more detail the specific building
placement and terrain design considerations. He then addressed
staff's concerns regarding the park -like setting, drainage
retention, fire protection, traffic, and overall impacts to the
area.
Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, spoke in opposition
emphasizing that their primary objections were to the hotel and
restaurant and their accompanying 24 hour inclination for
traffic. She feels those two uses are inappropriate for this
site as presently zoned.
Doyle Daniel spoke in opposition making the following points:
There are plenty of restaurants in the area, another is not
needed; that the developers coordination with, and involvement
of, the neighbors and neighborhood association was very
inadequate.
Mrs. Rosalie Gay Daniel spoke in opposition making the following
points: This is an inappropriate intense use with the hotel and
restaurant; noise, traffic, bright lights and heat reflection
will greatly increase; overall it will be a negative impact on
the neighborhood.
Mr. Bill Ruck, Floyd Boyd, Russ Racop and William Brady all spoke
in opposition emphasizing the negative impacts of an increase in
traffic caused by this high density development, and agreeing
with the other points already made.
Mr. Ken Davis spoke in opposition and passed out copies of a
petition from the people along Springwood Drive who oppose the
hotel and restaurant as inappropriate for this site.
Mrs. Terri Ruck spoke in opposition emphasizing the traffic
increase impacts related to cut -through traffic and that this in
her opinion is a conference center not an office complex.
Commissioners Muse, Rahman and Hawn engaged in some questions to
the applicant and discussion which involved the idea that this
was a good concept, but not at this location. They also
expressed feelings that this development would have a negative
impact on the neighborhood.
Commissioner Berry questioned the ability of the market to
support this added capacity for a use that is already gaining
capacity through construction downtown. He expressed concern
that this will be excess capacity and become vacant.
6
October 15, 1998
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont,J FILE NO.; Z -4755-A
A motion was made to approve the application as applied for. The
motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 9 nays and 2 absent.
7