Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4859-C Staff AnalysisMarch 14, 1996 V. ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-485 -C NAME: DEAN'S -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the west side of S. Bowman Road, approximately 700 feet south of Kanis Road DEVELOPER: HAROLD SMITH 18201 Lawson Rd. Little Rock, AR 72210 376-1799 ENGINEER. Pat McGetrick MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 AREA: 2.17 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: General Offices; Warehousing PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Approval of a private drive in an access easement to provide access to Lot 2. 2) Approval of a variance from the requirement for a drive in an access easement to meet City street standards. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a POD in order to divide a 2-acre tract into two approximately 1-acre lots. On the eastern -most lot, the applicant proposes to continue using the existing residential building which lies off S. Bowman Rd. for his "Dean's Coffee Service business and to construct a 5,000 square foot building at the rear/west side of the lot for storage of goods used in his business. The western -most lot is proposed to be sold and developed with a 10,440 square foot office building. A 25 foot deep "undisturbed" buffer is proposed along the west property line, as is retention of many of the large hardwood trees on the site. Access to the rear/west lot is to be provided by way of a private drive in an access easement, and approval of the proposed private drive in the access easement is requested. Additionally, the drive is proposed to be constructed to driveway standards, with head -in parking being provided off the drives, and a March 14, 1996 1. $gBDIVISION ITEM N C ntin FILE NO.: Z-485 -C variance is requested from the requirement for a drive in an* access easement to meet City street standards and the restriction on head -in parking off the drive. Parking for 8 vehicles is proposed to be provided on Lot 1; parking for 27 vehicles is proposed for Lot 2. Additional right-of-way for S. Bowman Rd. is proposed to be dedicated, and payment to the City of the cost of constructing one-half of the required improvements to S. Bowman Rd. is to be made. A. PROPOSALLRE ❑EST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a Planned Office Development, with access to Lot 2 to be provided by a private drive in an access easement. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a variance from the requirement for a drive in an access easement to meet City street standards, to permit the private drive in the access easement to be constructed to driveway standards, with head -in parking off the drives. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is a residential structure immediately off S. Bowman Rd. which is used for the offices the Dean's Coffee Service business. Otherwise, the site is undeveloped. The area to the rear, however, has been cleared in preparation for construction. The property rises in elevation from 97 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) along S. Bowman Rd. to 117 feet at the west property line, an average grade of 3%. The existing zoning of the site is R-2, with R-2 being the zoning of land to the south and west, as well along the northeast one-half of the site and across S. Bowman Rd. to the east. It is noted, though, that the ice/roller skating rink in directly across the street, and is a non -conforming use in the R-2 zoning district. Along the northwest half of the property is a PCD zone. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: Proper grading plans and erosion control plans are required prior to construction. 2 March 14, 1996 L �UBDIVISIQ ITEM N ntin d FILE ND.: 7-485 -C Stormwater detention analysis is required. Open . ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval of the plat [Ref. Sec. 311-89(9)]. Show water courses entering the plat area, and the planned exit points for drainage. Due to the multi -lot nature of this commercial development, the access should be constructed to commercial street standards, and parking should not be such that the backing movement would be into the entrance drive. This drive can be 27 feet in width and have a cul-de-sac at the end, subject to the length not being over 300 feet. Sidewalks on both sides of the drive are required. Right-of-way along Bowman Rd. is required to be 45 feet from the existing centerline. One-half street improvements will be required along Bowman Rd. Little Rock Water Works comments that a water main extension and private fire hydrant will be required to serve Lot 2. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extensions, with an easement, is required to serve the west/rear lot. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement along the west, north, east, and part of the south property line. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal, with the stipulation that ARKLA has no objection to the layout, as long as no ARKLA facilities are disturbed. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department commented that all drives should be a minimum of 20 feet in width at all points. The Fire Department noted that fire hydrants are not shown on the site plan, but must be placed inn compliance with the Ordinance standards. D. ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: The Planning staff comments that the site is located in the Ellis Mountain District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Multifamily". The proposed use for the site is 3 March 14, 1996 ti giUBDIVISI ITEM (Continued) FILE NO.• Z-48 -C "Office". Due to recent changes in the Land Use Plan in areas to the east and southeast, the proposed "Office" use of the property is in conformance with the developing land use of the area. Designating the area as "Transition Zone" ("TZ") would permit multifamily, residential, or office uses in the area, and staff recommends a change in the Land Use Plan for this site and the land to the south to "Transition Zone" ("TZ"). Sec. 31-201 provides that, when a development abuts a public street, the developer is to provide the minimum of one-half the required Master Street Plan improvements. Sidewalks are required along the boundary street associated with an office development. The applicant has indicated that he proposes to dedicate the required right-of-way along Bowman Rd., and is prepared to pay "in -lieu" funds with the City for Bowman Rd. improvements. Sec. 31-231 states that every lot shall abut upon a public street, except where a private street is explicitly approved by the Planning Commission. Sec. 31-287 requires that, where a commercial development requires the creation of an internalized circulation system to provide access to multiple lots and building site, the Planning Commission may authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of public commercial streets. The location of the private service easements is to be indicated on the plat and the improvements are to be built to public street design standards. Design of service easement improvements shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. Any variance from the public street standards must be appealed to the City Board of Directors. The applicant has requested such a variance in order for the private drive to be constructed to driveway standards, that no turn -around device be required, and that the parking spaces may back onto the drives. Parking requirements for office uses is one space for every 400 square feet of gross floor area up to 10,000 square feet of building size, then, for space over 10,000 square feet (up to 20,000 square feet), the parking requirement is 95% of the basic requirement. Parking requirements for warehouse uses are one space for each 2000 square feet of gross floor area, plus five spaces. The eastern -most new building is a 4,400 square feet building to be used for storage. Seven spaces are required by the regulations to be provided for this use; four are provided. The existing building, which is shown to remain, is an office or general business use. The parking for this building would range from three to four spaces; four are provided. With the rear 4 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISIQI ITEM O. (Con tin e FILE NO.: Z-4 - building being 10,440 square foot office use, 26 parking spaces are required. The total parking provided on the western -most building is 27 spaces; The location and plan for any signage must be specified and shown. The Plans Review Specialist notes that: Portions of the northern and southern site perimeters do not provide for the 6 foot wide landscape strips required by the Landscape Ordinance. Also, a section of the southern drive projects over the 7 foot wide land use buffer which is required (6 foot minimum with transfer). Curb and gutter, or other approved border, is required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. A 6 foot high opaque wood fence, with its face directed outward, or dense evergreen plantings, are required along the front two-thirds of the northern site perimeter and along the entire southern and eastern sides of the property. Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the applicant is to: 1) furnish the name and address of ,the owner of record and the source of title giving deed book and page number or instrument number; 2) furnish information on the lot sizes; and, 3) provide information on any existing and the proposed covenants and restrictions. Sec. 31-89 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the plat is to show: 1) minimum building front yard setback lines; 2) a storm drainage analysis showing drainage data for all water courses entering and leaving the tract; 3) a preliminary storm drainage plan incorporating proposed easements and typical ditch section; 4) the date of the survey; 5) the plat book and page number or instrument number of all abutting subdivisions, and the names of owners of all land contiguous to the proposed subdivision; 6) an adequate physical description of all monuments, to include the type of material and size of the monuments; and, 7) the zoning classifications of all abutting areas. Any proposed phasing of the development is to be indicated. Sec. 31-91 requires that the certifications be executed. Sec. 31-93 requires that a preliminary Bill of Assurance be provided. 5 March 14, 1996 V. SUBDIVISIO ITEM n in d FTLE NO -4 E. ANALYSIS• The preliminary plat submission has only minor deficiencies which can be submitted by the engineer for staff approval following Planning Commission approval of the plat. The rear lot does not have the required frontage on a public street, and a private access easement and private drive are requested to provide needed access. With the four acre site and two lots, the requirements that a private drive for non- residential uses not serve in excess of 5 acres is met. The POD site plan showing a driveway standard access drive, with no turn -around device within the access easement and with head -in parking off the drive is not in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant, has, however, requested a variance from these requirements. The parking which is provided, as far as the number -of spaces is conerned, meets the Ordinance requirements. The Fire Department has noted that all drives must be at least 20 feet in width. The applicant has, in attempting to retain many of the large hardwood trees, proposed 12 foot wide, one-way drives through the trees around the rear building. Consultation with the Fire Marshall needs to be had in order to determine what will be required for needed access by the Fire Department to three sides of the building. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the POD, and approval of the access easement to provide the required access to Lot 2. Staff recommends denial of the driveway, without a turn- around device, with head -in parking off the drive, and without a sidewalk along both sides of the drive. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. Harold Smith, the applicant, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, with McGetrick Engineering, the project engineer, were present. Staff outlined the requested POD, and presented the submitted preliminary plat and POD site plan. The various comments contained in the discussion outline were reviewed with Mr. Smith, Mr. McGetrick, and the Committee members. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, reviewed with the applicant and his 11 March 14, 1996 ti SUBDIVISION ITEM NO n in FILE Z - 435-L--C-I engineer the requirements for compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance and Master Street Plan. Mr. McGetrick indicated that the deficiencies would be addressed, but that a variance from the requirement to construct the interior drive to City street standards would be pursued. Mr. Smith complained that the regulations were too harsh, and made a small development financially impractical to implement. Mr. Smith and Mr. McGetrick indicated that further meetings with staff and with Mr. Ralph Bozeman, the project architect, would be needed in order to determine how to address the various comments. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted a letter, dated November 30, 1995, asking that the item be deferred until the Subdivision agenda of January 30, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the requested deferral, and the deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996) Staff reported that a letter had been received from the applicant, dated January 3, 1996, asking that the item be deferred until the March 14, 1996 Commission hearing. Staff noted that the requested deferral was the second deferral. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for Deferral, and the deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that a note had been received from the applicant, dated February 22, 1996, asking that the request for approval of a PD-C be withdrawn. Staff recommends approval of the requested withdrawal, without prejudice. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for Withdrawal, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 7