HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4953-B Staff AnalysisYta►�i101Eel K?
NAME: Park Avenue Long -form PCD
Z -4953-B
LOCATION: located on the Northwest corner of St. Vincent Circle and University
Avenue
Planning Staff Comments — Overlay Requirements Summary:
1. The Midtown Design Overlay District requires developments in excess of 200,000
square feet to contain a residential component. The residential may be in the same
structure or a separate structure, as long as the separate structure is part of the
overall development and the overall development is built simultaneously.
2. For any development constructed in phases, a portion of the secondary uses shall
be included in the initial phases.
3. Facade treatment — for new construction at least 60 percent of the ground floor level
facing internal pedestrian public circulation areas or streets shall be glass -windows,
entry features or displays. The primary facade of a building shall be oriented parallel
with the street, or to the principal vehicular or pedestrian routes of travel whether
public or private. Buildings shall maintain a distinction between upper and lower
levels; an elevation greater than 18 feet in height shall contain an architectural
treatment, which visually divides the structure into stories. Wall projections or
recesses a minimum of three feet deep and a minimum of 20 continuous feet not to
extend over 20 percent of the facade shall be required. Arches, display windows,
entry areas or awnings shall exist along at least 60 percent of the facade.
4. Entryway — Primary entrances shall be oriented to the street or to the principal
vehicular or pedestrian routes of travel within a development. Buildings shall have
clearly defined and visible customer entrances featuring elements such as
overhangs, arcades, arches, canopies, peaked roof forms, display windows. All
sides of buildings that face abutting public or private rights of way, except alleys,
shall feature at least one customer entrance.
5. Elevations - No elevation facing an arterial or greater street shall be primarily used
as a service entry or otherwise be treated as the rear of the structures. New
construction wider than 100 liner feet shall be visually massed so as to break the
structure visually. Roof lines shall be varied with changes in height every 100 liner
feet in building length. Parapets, mansard roofs, gable roofs, high roofs, shall be
used to conceal flat roofs and roof top equipment.
6. Exterior building materials and colors shall be aesthetically pleasing and compatible
with materials and colors used in neighboring developments. Materials, brick, wood,
store, tinted, stucco, EIFS Colors — shall be low reflectant, subtle, neutral or earth
tone with trim and accents brighter colors. Predominant exterior building materials
shall not be smooth -faced concrete block, tilt -up concrete panels or prefabricated
steel panels.
7. Building height — building heights are limited to 60 feet. Bonuses are allowed and
may be cumulative — developments providing a minimum of 15 percent of the gross
floor area for residential are entitled to add 45 -feet. Any structure that is certified by
CATA as provide a portion of the structure for mass transit is entitled to add 15 -feet.
Item # 13.
Mixed use structures with the street level primarily devoted to retail uses and at least
50 percent of these uses having direct access to the street are entitled to add 25 -
feet additionally developments with inter -grated parking facility substantially located
within the footprint of the primary structure may add 25 -feet to the structures.
(maximum height 170 -feet)
8. Setbacks — front yard setbacks may be zero but will not be more than 20 -feet
excepting in those cases where grade changes make such setbacks impractical.
Side yard setbacks may be zero except where adjacent to lots containing single-
family detached structures. In this case the side yard setback shall be a setback of
not less than four feet. Rear yard setback may be zero, except where adjacent to
lots containing single-family detached structures. In this case the rear yard setback
shall have a setback of not less than 25-fet.
9. Driveways, Sidewalks and Alleys — Driveways and internal circulation streets must
have lanes at least ten feet in width, but not more than 12 feet excepting that width
needed for bike lanes or special pedestrian accommodations. Intersections of
internal drives or streets will be minimally controlled by stop signs, and will feature
special crossway paving or treated surfaces. Access driveways running parallel with
the street shall not create a four way intersection within 125 feet of the ultimate curb
line of the public street. No more than one curb cut per block face shall be
permitted. Driveways and parking lot entrances -exits shall be combined and where
appropriate located in alleys.
10. Sidewalks and Pedestrian walkways — All driveways and internal streets shall have
minimum five foot sidewalks on both sides located away from the back of curb. All
sidewalks fronting buildings with ground floor retail shall be at least 10 feet in width.
Protected pedestrian walkways shall be provided through parking lots. All
developments shall include as part of their site plan pedestrian linkages through
parking areas and to adjacent buildings or developments.
11. Alleys — shall not be more than 20 -feet wide unless needed for emergency access.
Where an alley runs along a property line, it shall be screened from the adjacent
property by a permanent wall of high quality materials compatible with neighboring
buildings.
12. All new utilities for developments within the District shall be buried. All new
developments shall underground all utilities onsite or within adjacent public right of
way wherever determined by the utility agency to be feasible.
13. Trash enclosures shall be located in alleys wherever available or in common service
areas for multiple developments. In all areas, service and waste removal areas shall
be screened and located away from public outdoor spaces and pedestrian.
Dumpster screening shall comply with Section 36-253.
14. Parking facilities — wherever feasible, multilevel parking structures shall be
encouraged. Surface parking shall be limited to the side and rear of structures,
unless grouped in quantities of 50 spaces or less separated by a landscaping strip
no less than the perimeter landscape strip as required for the property by Chapter 15
of the code or a structure from other vehicular areas and having no more than one
vehicular connection to another surface parking area. Surface parking areas should
be broken up or distributed around large structures so as to shorten the distance to
other buildings and public sidewalks. For corner lots, parking is allowed along the
side street frontage.
15. Parking requirements shall be 50 percent of that required by Article VII of Chapter
36.
Item # 13.
16. No parking shall be allowed in the front yard setback.
17. Parking garage design — Parking facilities should be designed consistent with the
overall project design. Where possible, other uses, residential or commercial should
be used to wrap or otherwise block the view of a parking garage.
18. Signage — Signage shall comply with Article X except as follows — No off-site
advertising signs are permitted. No pole mounted signs are permitted. Monument
signs are to identify the development and be limited to 72 square feet in area and 6
feet in height for developments greater than one acre. Signage integrated into free-
standing vertical structures whose design theme and materials are directly related to
the primary development may be submitted for approval under the PZD process if
located along University southerly of Lee. No single elevation or face of such a
structure shall be more than 400 square feet.
19. No street buffer or landscaping is required along streets classified less than an
arterial. When the structure is not built to the property line, landscaping is required
in the area between the building and property line up to that required in Chapter 15
of the Code. Common use areas and plazas shall be a minimum of 300 square feet
for 30,000 square foot structures. For each additional 5,000 square feet or portion
thereof, a minimum of an additional 50 square feet of plaza area is required.
20. Surface parking lots shall meet all current landscape requirements.
21. Street trees shall be a minimum of 3 -inch caliper and shall be 2 feet off the back of
curb, 30 feet on center. The canopy shall be maintained with an 8 foot clearance. A
four foot planter strip shall be maintained.
22. Common use areas and plazas shall be maintained by a common authority.
Attempts shall be made to maintain vegetation, trees, bushes, in undisturbed
conditions to serve the aesthetic, recreational and ecological needs of the district.
Trees planted in these areas shall be a minimum of two inches in caliper and ten
feet in height.
23. Lighting shall conform to the design overlay district standards. Only light fixtures
which are categorized as full cut-off fixtures shall be permitted. The use of fully
shielded floodlights are permitted but not encouraged. The purpose is to regulate
the intensity of exterior lighting. The intent is to prevent light from commercial
developments from excessively illuminating the property in question, other properties
or the night sky. The ordinance provides minimum and maximum foot-candles for
various activities.
Planning Staff Comments:
1. Provide notification of all property owners located within 200 -feet of the site,
complete with the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof
of mailing. The notice must be mailed no later than March 12, 2008. The Office of
Planning and Development must receive the proof of notice no later than March 21,
2008.
2. The site plan as submitted does not provide connectivity and pedestrian access to
the adjoining properties to the south and east.
3. The parking lots as proposed do not allow for pedestrian connectivity within the site.
Provide pedestrian tables through the site to allow connectivity of the residential to
all aspects of the development.
Item # 13.
4. Provide the intent of the building signage. Provide the size and square footages of
the proposed building signage. The cover letter indicates buildings will be allowed
signage on all four sides. Will this be a cumulative percentage of the fagade area?
5. Will the development allow all of the following: window signage, blade signs, awning
signs? If so indicate in the cover letter this intent.
6. Will the development be a phased development? Provide a phasing plan if
applicable.
7. The cover letter indicates the creation of two (2) lots. Provide the proposed lot line
on the site plan.
8. Provide the maximum number of multi -family units proposed for the development.
9. The site plan indicates the placement of handicap parking located along the western
portion of the site and no handicap parking is located on the remainder of the site.
This will need to be adjusted for the entire site.
10. Provide details of the proposed ground mounted signage. The sign location on the
Northwest corner of the site is not located on property included on the survey
submitted with the application.
11. The survey does not include a surveyors stamp. Please provide the survey with a
surveyors stamp.
12. Dumpster facilities are required to be located away from street sides and be
screened from view. Provide the proposed mechanism for screening of dumpsters
and the location of proposed dumpster.
13. Provide the percentage of building coverage, parking lot coverage and percentage of
green space.
14. Provide the maximum building height.
15. Site lighting must be low level and directed downward and into the site.
16. The indicated crosswalks are they design features or actual crossings? The site
should provide a favorable pedestrian experience. The site should be made
pedestrian friendly. Crosswalks should be placed logically and at the ends of block
faces.
17.The goal of the design overlay is to create a sense of place. The anchors are not
integrated into the development and do not appear to create a sense of place.
18. The site plan should consider integrating bicycle racks within the development to
encourage residents to bicycle to the site.
19. Provide details for mechanical screening.
20. The entries to the south and west are not inviting. The entrances should be
designed to create the experience "you are here".
21. Provide elevations for University Avenue- and the rear of Anchor 1. The buildings
should be designed as 360 degree buildings.
22. What is the drive located on the entrance drive for Anchor 2?
23.All service areas are required to be screened from the abutting streets.
Neighborhood Associations Notified —
Briarwood Neighborhood Association
Variance/Waivers: None requested.
blic Works Conditions:
Item # 13.
1. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies that
McKinley Street for the frontage of this property must meet commercial street
standards. Dedicate that portion of right-of-way on McKinley Street which is private.
Additional right-of-way may be required to be dedicated if the eastern half of the
right-of-way is not 30 feet from centerline.
2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of St.
Vincent Circle and McKinley Street.
3. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of University
Avenue and St. Vincent Circle.
4. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to western portion of St. Vincent
Circle with the planned development. The new curb line should match the curb line
on the eastern portion of St. Vincent Circle.
5. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with Section
31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan to be installed along
University Avenue, St. Vincent Circle and McKinley Street.
6. University Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
7. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The width of driveway must not exceed
36 feet. The minimum driveway spacing on a principal arterial street (University
Avenue) is 300 feet from another driveway or intersection and 150 feet from property
line. The proposed driveways on University Avenue do not meet the spacing
requirement.
8. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The driveway spacing on a commercial
street (St. Vincent Circle) is at least 250 feet from another driveway or intersection
and at least 150 feet from the property line. The proposed driveways on St. Vincent
Circle do not meet the spacing requirement. The driveway on Saint Vincent's Circle
cannot exceed 36 feet in width per ordinance.
9. Per the Traffic Study provided, the intersection of Markham and McKinley St. should
be upgraded to include dual left turns, a single thru, and a single right turn lane.
Improvements should allow concurrent phasing rather than the split phasing which is
currently in operation.
10. Per the Traffic Study provided, the main entrance on University Ave should include
dual left turns out of the site to reduce the green time required to serve that
movement.
11. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-
of-way prior to occupancy.
12. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work.
Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic
Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner).
13.A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior
to any land clearing or grading activities at the site if the amount of cut and fill is
equal to or greater than 1000 cubic yards or if vertical cuts and fills are greater than
10 feet. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved
prior to the start of construction.
14. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from
Item # 13.
the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
15. Storm water detention will not apply to the proposed development due to the amount
of proposed impervious surface is comparable to the amount of existing impervious
surface.
16. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic Engineering
must approve completed plans prior to construction.
17. Coordinate design of traffic signal upgrade with proposed street improvements.
Plans to be forwarded to Traffic Engineering for approval.
18. Smaller scaled plans are desired to be submitted for all future reviews.
Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center -Point Ener_qy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas Water
regarding the size and location of the water meter(s). On site fire protection and
additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to
obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact
Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). This
development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed
water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on a major connecting point between five CATA routes.
In order to prevent major tie-ups along St. Vincent Circle a bus pullout lane of at least
140 -feet must be available along westbound St. Vincent Circle between South
University Avenue and McKinley Street. The current curb lane along the south side of
St. Vincent Circle for eastbound buses must also be maintained. The final street
configuration for St. Vincent Circle should allow for a minimum of two lanes in each
direction. One of the two lanes will be used for bus loading; the other lane will be used
for through traffic.
Planning Division: This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a
Planned Commercial Development to allow development of a mixed use development
containing commercial, office, cinema, hotel, and residential.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Item # 13.
Master Street Plan: South University is shown as a Principal Arterial. The primary
function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic
generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be
limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on South University
Avenue since it is a Principal Arterial. St. Vincent Circle and McKinley Street are both
shown as Local Streets. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to
adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or
more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as "Commercial Streets". These
streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. These streets may require
dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits
to the site.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in this immediate area.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the Briarwood Neighborhood Plan,
but the plan does not address this issue.
Parks and Recreation: Encourage pedestrian/bicycle links to War Memorial Park.
Contact the Parks and Recreation Department for additional information.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City's landscape, buffer ordinance and the Mid -
Towne Design Overlay District requirements unless variances are approved.
2. Additional street trees are recommended on the sites perimeters and vehicular
access areas.
3. Special attention should be given to this highly pedestrian development for open
shared space opportunities and additional green space(s).
4. This site will be reviewed as an overall development plan; therefore, the sites
entirety will need to be automatically irrigated and have a landscape plan with the
stamp of a licensed Landscape Architect.
5. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of eight percent (8%) of the paved
areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 Y2 feet in width and 300 square
feet in area. The proposed plan does not currently reflect this minimum requirement.
6. The zoning street buffer ordinance requires an average fifty foot (50) wide
landscape strip and in no case be less than half.
7. The zoning buffer ordinance requires a land use buffer along the north in the amount
of fifty foot (50'). Seventy percent (70%) of which is to remain undisturbed. If there
are no trees in this area then additional plantings will be required.
8. The property to the north is zoned office, therefore, a six (6) foot high opaque
screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense
evergreen plantings, is required along the northern perimeter of the site.
9. The medical building appears to have parking proposed in this area and along South
University Avenue. Consider revising the site plan to create more green space along
this major City corridor.
10. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an approved
landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
Item # 13.
12. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as
feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can
be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger.
Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plat/plan (to include
the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, March 12, 2008.
Item # 13.
June 19, 2008
ITEM NO.: 13
NAME: Park Avenue Long -form PCD Update
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of St. Vincent Circle and University
Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Strode Property Company
5950 Berkshire Lane #1600
Dallas, TX 75225
ENGINEER:
Lawrence A. Cates and Associates, LLP
14800 Quorum Drive, Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75254
PLANNER:
Good Fulton and Farrel
2808 Fairmount, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75201
AREA: 28.39 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
ALLOWED USES: General Commercial Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use Development — Residential, Retail, Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow an increased wall height
along McKinley Street.
The plan shows a mixed use development containing residential, office and retail uses.
The project is indicated with 753,400 square feet of space. The break down of uses is
as follows:
June 19, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
Retail/Restaurant 89,400 SF (Max. Rest. 40,000 SF)
Anchor 162,600 SF
Cinema 36,000 SF
Residential: 313,900 SF (Max. including Hotel)
900 SF Avg. 330 Units
Office 31,500 SF
Office Option 120.000 SF
Total: 753,400 SF
The plan indicates two parking structures; utilization of the existing structure and the
construction of a second parking structure near the southeastern portion of the site.
The total parking proposed for the development is 1,802 spaces. Based on parking
standards established by the Overlay for a shopping center development, a maximum of
2,906 and a minimum of 1,453 parking spaces are allowed.
The total building lot coverage proposed is 333,400 square feet or 27.0 percent and the
total parking coverage is 387,400 square feet or 31.3 percent, including the parking
structures. The total open space proposed is 43,400 square feet. As indicated in the
previous write-up, a total of 14,913 square feet of common use area is required.
The existing parking structure contains 679 spaces and the new parking structure is
proposed to contain up to 360 spaces. There are six lots containing varied numbers of
surface parking spaces. The largest surface parking area is the parking area in front of
Anchor 1 which contains 384 spaces and the next is Lot B, the Town Center portion of
the development which contains a total of 276 surface parking spaces. The remaining
lots contain 17 spaces, 39 spaces and 47 spaces. One of the proposed lots does not
contain any surface parking. The parking fields have been broken to limit the visual and
physical impact. Even though located on the same lot, the two parking fields south of
Retail/Restaurant Buildings E and F each contain 70 spaces. This parking area has
been reduced by 1/3 from the previous site plan. The remainder of the parking fields
appear to contain less than the 50 spaces recommended by the DOD.
Along the project edge at the southeastern corner of the site, a Retail/Residential
structure with a maximum of four stories has been located. A total of 13,700 square
feet of ground level retail and 33 residential units are proposed topped with three
additional levels each containing 51 residential units for a total of 168 residential units.
This portion of the site plan also includes the new parking structure. The structure is
proposed with a maximum of four levels with up to 360 spaces. The site plan includes a
courtyard and private open space to serve the residential units. The placement of the
structure at this location recognizes the importance of this intersection to both the area
and the development.
1►
June 19, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
A 25 -foot landscape strip located between the right of way and the building along
St. Vincent's Circle and a landscape strip ranging from 12 feet to 25 feet along South
University Avenue have been indicated. The Overlay allows for a zero building setback
and not more than 20 feet excepting in those cases where grade changes make such
setbacks impractical. The buildings are being placed consistent with the Overlay
excepting the areas where grades do not allow a zero setback.
The Retail/Restaurant, Buildings A - F and Anchor 4, are located south of the existing
parking structure. Buildings A — F are indicated with a maximum of two stories. The
second story above Buildings E and F is indicated as "flex space" which could function
as live and/or office workspace. Anchor 4, also located in this area, is indicated with
15,500 square feet of ground floor retail space and up to seven (7) levels and 120,000
square feet of office space.
The northern building on McKinley Street is indicated as a residential or hotel structure.
A note on the site plan states, if residential, the structure will be a maximum of four
stories containing 162 units or if developed as a limited service hotel, there will be a up
to seven levels and 127 rooms.
The four entrances to the development are accented with contrasting paving. The
entrances are further accented with lighting, landscaping and pedestrian walkways.
Development center signage is proposed at three of the entrances, on South University
Avenue, on St. Vincent's Circle, on McKinley Street and at the intersection of
St. Vincent's Circle and South University Avenue. Development center signage is
proposed as a monument style sign with a maximum height of 35 -feet and width of
20 -feet. The total sign face is proposed not to exceed 400 square feet in area. The
Overlay states signage integrated into free standing vertical structures whose design
theme and materials are directly related to the primary development may submit for
approval under the PZD process the proposed signage plan. No single elevation or
face of such a structure shall be more than 400 square feet. Although the sign
structures are proposed in excess of the 400 square feet, the sign faces are limited to a
maximum of 400 square feet. The structures are proposed as an architectural element
of the center and will be constructed of materials that are directly related to the
development. The secondary entrance from South University Avenue will contain a
single monument style sign not to exceed six feet in height and 72 square feet in area.
This sign complies with the Overlay standards.
The site plan indicates pedestrian connectivity internally and externally. Connections
have been made between the Town Center portion of the development and the
southern anchors. Inviting pedestrian access has been provided from the entrance
drives into the site. The two surface parking lots located south of the Retail/Restaurant
Building E and F have been reduced, limiting the rows of parking to nine spaces and
3
June 19, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
pedestrian tables have been located at the ends of these lots to facilitate foot traffic
throughout the site. The main anchor has provided a pedestrian table within the center
of the lot to allow a safe passage for both patrons and persons accessing the southern
anchors from the northern retail and residential buildings. All other buildings within the
development are connected via pedestrian tables and 10 -foot wide pedestrian walkways
similar to standards identified in the Overlay.
The development is proposed to contain a mixture of residential, office and commercial
space as identified in the ULI Study and the Statement of Expectations and the
development creates a true 24-7 environment. The development is proposed to contain
up to 151,500 square feet or 20 percent of the total square footage as office space.
Buildings E and F have been indicated with residential/office atop retail identified as
"flex space" for a possible live work environment. With the addition of the
residential/retail component at the St. Vincent's Circle/South University Avenue
intersection, the overall Town Center concept has been expanded through out the site.
By removing Anchor 3, the parking fields located in front of Retail F, K and Anchor 2
have been reduced by 1/3 from the previous submittal thus limiting their visual impact.
The pedestrian movement, both internally and externally, has been designed to allow
easy access into and through the site for residents and patrons of the shopping center.
Although signage is proposed in excess of the typical Overlay standard, staff is
supportive of the design concept. The signage will be an architectural feature
integrating materials directly related to other construction materials used in the center.
The large anchor has not been designed to create the appearance of a front facade on
all the abutting roadways. The developers have indicated this is not technically feasible.
This anchor has a building design that does not lend itself to creating additional
entrances or false entrances. The remainder of the street frontage along St. Vincent's
Circle and McKinley Street will be developed with design criteria, which allows for
enhanced features to limit the visual impact of the structures on the street sides. Staff
feels the developers have done a good job in trying the meet the spirit of the Mid -Town
Design Overlay District and the Statement of Design and Programming Expectations.
Staff is in full support of the current site plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 19, 2008)
Mr. Chuck Keller was present representing the application. There were persons present
with concerns. Staff stated at the direction of the Commission at its May 22, 2008,
public hearing the applicant had met with City staff and others concerning changes to
the site plan related to specific issues raised at the Commission meeting and by staff.
Staff stated modifications had been made to the site plan and staff felt it was important
to brining the current site plan to the Commission for review prior to the item being
reviewed by the Board of Directors.
M
June 19, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
Staff stated the plan now indicated a true mixed use development containing residential,
commercial and now an office component. Staff stated the development was indicated
753,400 square feet of residential, office and commercial space with up to
150,000 square feet of office space. Staff stated a few of the changes to the site plan
included the emphasis of the southeastern project edge with the addition of a four-story
residential building. Staff stated a parking structure had been included in this area to
serve the residential use. Staff stated with the addition of the residential building at this
intersection the Town Center concept had been integrated through out the site. Staff
stated pedestrian accesses and connectivity both internally and externally had been
addressed. Staff stated the entrances to the development had been enhanced and the
design concept of the Town Center had been integrated into these areas as well. Staff
noted the parking fields had been broken and the parking fields located north of Anchor
2 had been reduced by as much as 1/3.
Staff stated the presentation was only a brief summary of the current plan and Mr. Keller
would provide the Commission additional details of the changes.
Staff stated although the site plan did not fully comply with the Mid -town DOD they felt
the developers had done a good job in trying to meet the spirit of the Mid -town District
and the statement of Design Programming Expectations. Staff stated they were in full
support of the project.
Mr. Chuck Keller of Park Avenue Properties addressed the Commission. He stated at
the direction of the Commission the developers did meet with City staff, Craig Berry and
the City's consultant to discuss options for change to the site plan. He stated Anchor 3
had been removed for the site, which was a significant change. He stated limits were
placed on the developability of the southeast corner due to a large drainage easement
which started somewhere near Park Plaza Mall and emptied somewhere south of the
site. He stated the structure was not located within an easement but the relocation of
the drainage structure was not feasible. He stated all plans had been developed around
the structure and the limits of not being able to build on top of the drainage structure.
Mr. Keller stated the new plan indicated the placement of a four story residential
building on the southeast corner of the site. He stated along with the residential, a
parking deck with up to four stories was proposed and ground level retail. Mr. Keller
stated the drainage structure would serve as the driveway to the parking deck. He
stated on the second level the building would extend over the drainage structure. He
stated with the placement of the parking structure exclusive to the residential should a
condo situation arise in the future the sale of the units would be an easier transition.
Mr. Keller stated connectivity was a concern raised by staff and the Commission. He
stated the current plan indicated sidewalk connections along St. Vincent's Circle and
McKinley Street to allow access into the site. He stated the walks into the development
were a minimum of 10 -feet wide and the area would be landscaped and lighting would
June 19, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.
FOAZ►[61W• SM
be added to enhance these areas. Mr. Keller stated additional pedestrian accesses had
been included through out the site to allow patrons safe access through the site.
Mr. Keller stated the northern buildings, the Town Center buildings, had been
redesigned removing the residential to the southeastern edge of the project. He stated
the Town Center buildings were now proposed as one to two story buildings. He stated
two additional screens had been added to the theater. He stated the second level
above the southern building was proposed as loft space with up to 31,000 square feet of
office space. He stated the intent was to allow this space as flex space or live/work
space where if a person desired to live on site and office on site this could be
achievable. He stated in addition Anchor 4 was indicated with ground level retail and up
to seven levels and 120,000 square feet of office space.
Mr. Keller provided the Commission with three-dimensional views of the site. He stated
based on a one-dimensional drawing it was difficult to visualize the site. He stated the
current plan would be developed with verticality. He stated the parking fields had been
reduced and with the placement of landscaping within the parking fields the visual
impacts would also be lessened. Mr. Keller stated the intent was only to create one
Town Center. He stated with the addition of elements contained within the Town Center
the development was better tied together.
Mr. Keller stated he could not fully comply with the Mid -town Overlay. He stated he
would still need variances to allow the development of Park Avenue.
Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission. She stated the
site plan was much better. She stated the landscaping in the parking lots, the office
component, the retail and residential combined were all good changes but she stated
the plan was not perfect. She stated the pedestrian movement was better with the
exception of the southern entrance from St. Vincent's Circle. She stated in this area,
where most would enter they would walk past loading docks before entering the
development. She stated bicycle racks had been promised by the developer but bicycle
movement did not appear to be addressed within the development. She requested the
developer provide graphics at the entrance to the development indicating the location of
bicycle routes and bicycle racks to accommodate cyclist accessing the site.
Ms. Bell stated the bigger problem was the four corners and the lack of circulation
between the sites. She stated it was important to begin discussion with all four corners
to create a shuttle service to access these four properties and allow residents of Park
Avenue and customers to access other shopping areas without traveling in their
automobile.
Ms. Bell stated the sign was not what the League was expecting. She stated it was
difficult to find Park Avenue on the sign. She stated based on the proposed signage the
C
June 19, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
development was the Target Shopping center. She requested the developers place the
name of the center on top of the sign.
Mr. Jim Bell addressed the Commission. He stated the Briarwood Neighborhood
Association was in favor of the mixed use center proposed. He stated if the center was
viable it would only enhance the area and the neighborhood. He stated the signage
was a concern. He stated based on the sign proposed the first thing you saw as a big
Target's bulls eye. He requested the developer design the sign to indicated the name
of the center being the most prominent. He stated the landscaping was more friendly
and the entrances were well defined. He requested the landscaping be placed and able
to grow to maturity. He requested the developers not install crape myrtles which were
trimmed every year.
Commissioner Nunnley questioned the developer as to why he could not meet the
overlay requirements. Mr. Keller stated he was not sure of all the items not being met
but one item was the entrances on all street sides. He stated the facades would be
broken to break the visual massing of the structure but the retailers did not lend
themselves to multiple entrances. He stated they were not designed to operate multiple
entrances and from a loss prevention standpoint multiple entrances were difficult to
manage. Mr. Keller stated setbacks was another area of non-compliance. He stated
there were areas of the site that did not lend themselves to a zero setback or to the
maximum 20 foot setback due to grades.
Commissioner Nunnley questioned Mr. Craig Berry as to his thoughts on the plan. Mr.
Berry stated he did meet with the developers in Dallas along with City staff and the
City's consultant and modifications had been made based on the meeting. He stated
the Mid Town Advisory Board had not met so he could not speak on behalf of the Board
members as to their thoughts of the plan. He stated the plan was an improvement.
Commissioner Nunnley stated he felt the plan a better plan. He stated he wanted to
applaud the developers for their efforts and their willingness to work with interested
parties on the site plan and to develop a better plan than previously presented.
Commissioner Pruitt stated she to felt the plan a better plan. She stated the developer
had do a good job in working with all concerned to address issues previously raised.
Chairman Taylor stated he felt the plan an improvement. He stated he had previously
voted against the plan but with the changes he was in support the plan. He stated the
plan was not 100 percent but he felt the plan much better than the plan the Commission
reviewed on May 22, 2008.
There was no further discussion of the item.
7
June 19, 2008
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
NAME: Park Avenue Long -form PCD Update
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of St. Vincent Circle and University
Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Strode Property Company
5950 Berkshire Lane #1600
Dallas, TX 75225
ENGINEER:
Lawrence A. Cates and Associates, LLP
14800 Quorum Drive, Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75254
PLANNER:
Good Fulton and Farrel
2808 Fairmount, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75201
AREA: 28.39 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
ALLOWED USES: General Commercial Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use Development — Residential, Retail, Office
VARIANCESIWAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow an increased wall height
along McKinley Street.
The plan shows a mixed use development containing residential, office and retail uses.
The project is indicated with 753,400 square feet of space. The break down of uses is
as follows:
June 19, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.
Retail/Restaurant
Anchor
Cinema
Residential:
Office
Office Option
Total:
89,400 SF (Max. Rest. 40,000 SF)
162,600 SF
36,000 SF
313,900 SF (Max. including Hotel)
900 SF Avg. 330 Units
31,500 SF
120.000 SF
753,400 SF
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
The plan indicates two parking structures; utilization of the existing structure and the
construction of a second parking structure near the southeastern portion of the site.
The total parking proposed for the development is 1,802 spaces. Based on parking
standards established by the Overlay for a shopping center development, a maximum of
2,906 and a minimum of 1,453 parking spaces are allowed.
The total building lot coverage proposed is 333,400 square feet or 27.0 percent and the
total parking coverage is 387,400 square feet or 31.3 percent, including the parking
structures. The total open space proposed is 43,400 square feet. As indicated in the
previous write-up, a total of 14,913 square feet of common use area is required.
The existing parking structure contains 679 spaces and the new parking structure is
proposed to contain up to 360 spaces. There are six lots containing varied numbers of
surface parking spaces. The largest surface parking area is the parking area in front of
Anchor 1 which contains 384 spaces and the next is Lot B, the Town Center portion of
the development which contains a total of 276 surface parking spaces. The remaining
lots contain 17 spaces, 39 spaces and 47 spaces. One of the proposed lots does not
contain any surface parking. The parking fields have been broken to limit the visual and
physical impact. Even though located on the same lot, the two parking fields south of
Retail/Restaurant Buildings E and F each contain 70 spaces. This parking area has
been reduced by 1/3 from the previous site plan. The remainder of the parking fields
appear to contain less than the 50 spaces recommended by the DOD.
Along the project edge at the southeastern corner of the site, a Retail/Residential
structure with a maximum of four stories has been located. A total of 13,700 square
feet of ground level retail and 33 residential units are proposed topped with three
additional levels each containing 51 residential units for a total of 168 residential units.
This portion of the site plan also includes the new parking structure. The structure is
proposed with a maximum of four levels with up to 360 spaces. The site plan includes a
courtyard and private open space to serve the residential units. The placement of the
structure at this location recognizes the importance of this intersection to both the area
and the development.
2
June 19, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
A 25 -foot landscape strip located between the right of way and the building along
St. Vincent's Circle and a landscape strip ranging from 12 feet to 25 feet along South
University Avenue have been indicated. The Overlay allows for a zero building setback
and not more than 20 feet excepting in those cases where grade changes make such
setbacks impractical. The buildings are being placed consistent with the Overlay
excepting the areas where grades do not allow a zero setback.
The Retail/Restaurant, Buildings A - F and Anchor 4, are located south of the existing
parking structure. Buildings A — F are indicated with a maximum of two stories. The
second story above Buildings E and F is indicated as "flex space" which could function
as live and/or office workspace. Anchor 4, also located in this area, is indicated with
15,500 square feet of ground floor retail space and up to seven (7) levels and 120,000
square feet of office space.
The northern building on McKinley Street is indicated as a residential or hotel structure.
A note on the site plan states, if residential, the structure will be a maximum of four
stories containing 162 units or if developed as a limited service hotel, there will be a up
to seven levels and 127 rooms.
The four entrances to the development are accented with contrasting paving. The
entrances are further accented with lighting, landscaping and pedestrian walkways.
Development center signage is proposed at three of the entrances, on South University
Avenue, on St. Vincent's Circle, on McKinley Street and at the intersection of
St. Vincent's Circle and South University Avenue. Development center signage is
proposed as a monument style sign with a maximum height of 35 -feet and width of
20 -feet. The total sign face is proposed not to exceed 400 square feet in area. The
Overlay states signage integrated into free standing vertical structures whose design
theme and materials are directly related to the primary development may submit for
approval under the PZD process the proposed signage plan. No single elevation or
face of such a structure shall be more than 400 square feet. Although the sign
structures are proposed in excess of the 400 square feet, the sign faces are limited to a
maximum of 400 square feet. The structures are proposed as an architectural element
of the center and will be constructed of materials that are directly related to the
development. The secondary entrance from South University Avenue will contain a
single monument style sign not to exceed six feet in height and 72 square feet in area.
This sign complies with the Overlay standards.
The site plan indicates pedestrian connectivity internally and externally. Connections
have been made between the Town Center portion of the development and the
southern anchors. Inviting pedestrian access has been provided from the entrance
drives into the site. The two surface parking lots located south of the Retail/Restaurant
Building E and F have been reduced, limiting the rows of parking to nine spaces and
3
June 19, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (C
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
pedestrian tables have been located at the ends of these lots to facilitate foot traffic
throughout the site. The main anchor has provided a pedestrian table within the center
of the lot to allow a safe passage for both patrons and persons accessing the southern
anchors from the northern retail and residential buildings. All other buildings within the
development are connected via pedestrian tables and 10 -foot wide pedestrian walkways
similar to standards identified in the Overlay.
The development is proposed to contain a mixture of residential, office and commercial
space as identified in the ULI Study and the Statement of Expectations and the
development creates a true 24-7 environment. The development is proposed to contain
up to 151,500 square feet or 20 percent of the total square footage as office space.
Buildings E and F have been indicated with residential/office atop retail identified as
"flex space" for a possible live work environment. With the addition of the
residential/retail component at the St. Vincent's Circle/South University Avenue
intersection, the overall Town Center concept has been expanded through out the site.
By removing Anchor 3, the parking fields located in front of Retail F, K and Anchor 2
have been reduced by 1/3 from the previous submittal thus limiting their visual impact.
The pedestrian movement, both internally and externally, has been designed to allow
easy access into and through the site for residents and patrons of the shopping center.
Although signage is proposed in excess of the typical Overlay standard, staff is
supportive of the design concept. The signage will be an architectural feature
integrating materials directly related to other construction materials used in the center.
The large anchor has not been designed to create the appearance of a front fagade on
all the abutting roadways. The developers have indicated this is not technically feasible.
This anchor has a building design that does not lend itself to creating additional
entrances or false entrances. The remainder of the street frontage along St. Vincent's
Circle and McKinley Street will be developed with design criteria, which allows for
enhanced features to limit the visual impact of the structures on the street sides. Staff
feels the developers have done a good job in trying the meet the spirit of the Mid -Town
Design Overlay District and the Statement of Design and Programming Expectations.
Staff is in full support of the current site plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 19, 2008)
Mr. Chuck Keller was present representing the application. There were persons present
with concerns. Staff stated at the direction of the Commission at its May 22, 2008,
public hearing the applicant had met with City staff and others concerning changes to
the site plan related to specific issues raised at the Commission meeting and by staff.
Staff stated modifications had been made to the site plan and staff felt it was important
to brining the current site plan to the Commission for review prior to the item being
reviewed by the Board of Directors.
An
June 19, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
Staff stated the plan now indicated a true mixed use development containing residential,
commercial and now an office component. Staff stated the development was indicated
753,400 square feet of residential, office and commercial space with up to
150,000 square feet of office space. Staff stated a few of the changes to the site plan
included the emphasis of the southeastern project edge with the addition of a four-story
residential building. Staff stated a parking structure had been included in this area to
serve the residential use. Staff stated with the addition of the residential building at this
intersection the Town Center concept had been integrated through out the site. Staff
stated pedestrian accesses and connectivity both internally and externally had been
addressed. Staff stated the entrances to the development had been enhanced and the
design concept of the Town Center had been integrated into these areas as well. Staff
noted the parking fields had been broken and the parking fields located north of Anchor
2 had been reduced by as much as 1/3.
Staff stated the presentation was only a brief summary of the current plan and Mr. Keller
would provide the Commission additional details of the changes.
Staff stated although the site plan did not fully comply with the Mid -town DOD they felt
the developers had done a good job in trying to meet the spirit of the Mid -town District
and the statement of Design Programming Expectations. Staff stated they were in full
support of the project.
Mr. Chuck Keller of Park Avenue Properties addressed the Commission. He stated at
the direction of the Commission the developers did meet with City staff, Craig Berry and
the City's consultant to discuss options for change to the site plan. He stated Anchor 3
had been removed for the site, which was a significant change. He stated limits were
placed on the developability of the southeast corner due to a large drainage easement
which started somewhere near Park Plaza Mall and emptied somewhere south of the
site. He stated the structure was not located within an easement but the relocation of
the drainage structure was not feasible. He stated all plans had been developed around
the structure and the limits of not being able to build on top of the drainage structure.
Mr. Keller stated the new plan indicated the placement of a four story residential
building on the southeast corner of the site. He stated along with the residential, a
parking deck with up to four stories was proposed and ground level retail. Mr. Keller
stated the drainage structure would serve as the driveway to the parking deck. He
stated on the second level the building would extend over the drainage structure. He
stated with the placement of the parking structure exclusive to the residential should a
condo situation arise in the future the sale of the units would be an easier transition.
Mr. Keller stated connectivity was a concern raised by staff and the Commission. He
stated the current plan indicated sidewalk connections along St. Vincent's Circle and
McKinley Street to allow access into the site. He stated the walks into the development
were a minimum of 10 -feet wide and the area would be landscaped and lighting would
5
June 19, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
be added to enhance these areas. Mr. Keller stated additional pedestrian accesses had
been included through out the site to allow patrons safe access through the site.
Mr. Keller stated the northern buildings, the Town Center buildings, had been
redesigned removing the residential to the southeastern edge of the project. He stated
the Town Center buildings were now proposed as one to two story buildings. He stated
two additional screens had been added to the theater. He stated the second level
above the southern building was proposed as loft space with up to 31,000 square feet of
office space. He stated the intent was to allow this space as flex space or live/work
space where if a person desired to live on site and office on site this could be
achievable. He stated in addition Anchor 4 was indicated with ground level retail and up
to seven levels and 120,000 square feet of office space.
Mr. Keller provided the Commission with three-dimensional views of the site. He stated
based on a one-dimensional drawing it was difficult to visualize the site. He stated the
current plan would be developed with verticality. He stated the parking fields had been
reduced and with the placement of landscaping within the parking fields the visual
impacts would also be lessened. Mr. Keller stated the intent was only to create one
Town Center. He stated with the addition of elements contained within the Town Center
the development was better tied together.
Mr. Keller stated he could not fully comply with the Mid -town Overlay. He stated he
would still need variances to allow the development of Park Avenue.
Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission. She stated the
site plan was much better. She stated the landscaping in the parking lots, the office
component, the retail and residential combined were all good changes but she stated
the plan was not perfect. She stated the pedestrian movement was better with the
exception of the southern entrance from St. Vincent's Circle. She stated in this area,
where most would enter they would walk past loading docks before entering the
development. She stated bicycle racks had been promised by the developer but bicycle
movement did not appear to be addressed within the development. She requested the
developer provide graphics at the entrance to the development indicating the location of
bicycle routes and bicycle racks to accommodate cyclist accessing the site.
Ms. Bell stated the bigger problem was the four corners and the lack of circulation
between the sites. She stated it was important to begin discussion with all four corners
to create a shuttle service to access these four properties and allow residents of Park
Avenue and customers to access other shopping areas without traveling in their
automobile.
Ms. Bell stated the sign was not what the League was expecting. She stated it was
difficult to find Park Avenue on the sign. She stated based on the proposed signage the
N.
June 19, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
development was the Target Shopping center. She requested the developers place the
name of the center on top of the sign.
Mr. Jim Bell addressed the Commission. He stated the Briarwood Neighborhood
Association was in favor of the mixed use center proposed. He stated if the center was
viable it would only enhance the area and the neighborhood. He stated the signage
was a concern. He stated based on the sign proposed the first thing you saw as a big
Target's bulls eye. He requested the developer design the sign to indicated the name
of the center being the most prominent. He stated the landscaping was more friendly
and the entrances were well defined. He requested the landscaping be placed and able
to grow to maturity. He requested the developers not install crape myrtles which were
trimmed every year.
Commissioner Nunnley questioned the developer as to why he could not meet the
overlay requirements. Mr. Keller stated he was not sure of all the items not being met
but one item was the entrances on all street sides. He stated the facades would be
broken to break the visual massing of the structure but the retailers did not lend
themselves to multiple entrances. He stated they were not designed to operate multiple
entrances and from a loss prevention standpoint multiple entrances were difficult to
manage. Mr. Keller stated setbacks was another area of non-compliance. He stated
there were areas of the site that did not lend themselves to a zero setback or to the
maximum 20 foot setback due to grades.
Commissioner Nunnley questioned Mr. Craig Berry as to his thoughts on the plan. Mr.
Berry stated he did meet with the developers in Dallas along with City staff and the
City's consultant and modifications had been made based on the meeting. He stated
the Mid Town Advisory Board had not met so he could not speak on behalf of the Board
members as to their thoughts of the plan. He stated the plan was an improvement.
Commissioner Nunnley stated he felt the plan a better plan. He stated he wanted to
applaud the developers for their efforts and their willingness to work with interested
parties on the site plan and to develop a better plan than previously presented.
Commissioner Pruitt stated she to felt the plan a better plan. She stated the developer
had do a good job in working with all concerned to address issues previously raised.
Chairman Taylor stated he felt the plan an improvement. He stated he had previously
voted against the plan but with the changes he was in support the plan. He stated the
plan was not 100 percent but he felt the plan much better than the plan the Commission
reviewed on May 22, 2008.
There was no further discussion of the item.
7
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
NAME: Park Avenue Long -form PCD
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of St. Vincent Circle and University
Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Strode Property Company
5950 Berkshire Lane #1600
Dallas, TX 75225
FNr�INFFR•
Lawrence A. Cates and Associates, LLP
14800 Quorum Drive, Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75254
P1 AnInIFR•
Good Fulton and Farrel
2808 Fairmount, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75201
AREA: 28.39 acres
CURRENT ZONING:
ALLOWED USES:
PROPOSED ZONING:
PROPOSED USE
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
C-3, General Commercial District
General Commercial Uses
PCD
Mixed Use Development — Residential, Retail
VARIANCESM/AIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow an increased wall height
along McKinley Street.
A. PROPOSALIREQUEST/APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The site of the former University Mall is 28.39 acres of land. Strode Property
Company, the applicant, purchased the property in September of 2007, and
began demolition of the deteriorating facility in November 2007. During the
demolition phase, the structure was taken down to 2 feet below the current
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
finished floor elevation and the hazardous materials were removed under the
supervision of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.
The plans for the new development, named Park Avenue, involve a__rnid-u.se
concept incorporating retail restaurant residential and theatre. The design
scheme uses building materials and site scapes that invi a cusfomers, residents
and employees to change their life patterns and spend more time in one place,
Park Avenue. I0_te ratin retail with multi -family and designing open public
spaces into the site plan gives the development a much desired "sense of place".
Specifically, the plan includes 748,250 square feet of total building area utilizing
the existing two story parking structure as well as an underground parking
garage that will sit under one of the retail/multi-family building pods. The
remainder of the site will be surface parked using a formula that reduces the
standard parking ratios by complimentary uses. The large anchors expected to
be involved demand a parking field in front of their stores for their customers.
With the current plan of 748,250 square feet, the components break down as
follows:
Proiect Data:
Retail/Restaurant
79,650 square feet
Anchor 212,600 square feet
Cinema 27,000 square feet
Residential or Residential and Hotel 429,000 square feet
900 SF Avg. 476 Units Max — Residential; 127 room hotel
Total Square Footage
Parking Provided:
Surface Spaces/Lot A
Surface Spaces/Lot B
Surface Spaces/Lot C
Surface Spaces/Lot D
Surface Spaces/Lot E
Surface Spaces/Lot F
Existing Parking Structure
Underground Garage
Total Spaces
Building Lot Coverage
Parking Lot Coverage
748,250 square feet
384 spaces
391 spaces
6 spaces
38 spaces
43 spaces
47 spaces
682 spaces
207 spaces
1,798 spaces
336,250 Sq. Ft. 25.8%
319,600 Sq. Ft. 25.8%
The total number of spaces for the development is a ratio of 2.4 per 1,000 square
feet of floor area or 1,798 total parking spaces. The site will be subdivided into
separate parcels to allow for future transfer of property to potential tenants.
I:
FILE NO.: Z-4953-8 Cont.
Park Avenue is designed to meet the purpose and intent of the Midtown Overlay
District by creating the ability to work, live, shop and recreate in one location.
This will achieved by using the ground floor of key building pods for retail space
similar to the description in Section 36.388 of the Midtown Overlay District.
Multiple free standing single user retail buildings are proposed within the site
plan.
Common elements, either colors or materials, to achieve architectural harmony
throughout the development are proposed. The building facades are proposed
constructed using a predominance of masonry, stone, or exterior insulation finish
system and the retail ground floor will utilize a glass store front system. To
address long or tall building elevations, special care will be taken to break up the
mass with articulations of color and/or material change.
The signage includes multi -tenant and single tenant monument type structures at
all entrances. Directional or "way finding" signs will direct visitors across the
project and include tenant logos. Tenant signage is strictly governed by the
owner to insure a cohesive, controlled and unique "branding" of the development.
Tenant signage on some buildings may be allowed on three sides. Blade,
awning, window and seasonal banners will be utilized by the development.
The residential units of Pak Avenue will be for rent and the residents will utilize
the parking structures mentioned previously to serve their parking needs. This
component will include private areas for fitness, sunbathing or congregating and
there will be balconies to encourage the residents to embrace the open spaces
and promote the "sense of place". Parking lot lighting will be pole mounted over
a concrete base at levels necessary to ensure residents and customer safety at
the project.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is the former University Mall site which is currently being demolished.
The developers have retained the parking deck structure. The area is a mix of
office, commercial and institutional uses. St. Vincent's Hospital is located to the
east of the site, across South University Avenue, and is currently undergoing an
expansion. Doctors Office building and St. Vincent's Doctors Hospital is located
to the South of the site, across St. Vincent Circle. To the west of the site is
residential housing, both single-family and multi -family homes. North of the site
are office and commercial uses including a multi -story office building located at
the southwest intersection of West Markham and South University Avenue. A
vacant branch bank building located at the property's northeast corner, a
restaurant, a high rise residential tower and a funeral home are all located to the
north of this site fronting West Markham Street.
3
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B Cont.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS -
As of this writing, staff has received an informational phone call from an area
resident. The Briarwood Neighborhood Association, all property owners located
within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within
300 -feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies
that McKinley Street for the frontage of this property must meet commercial
street standards. Dedicate that portion of right-of-way on McKinley Street
which is private. Additional right-of-way may be required to be dedicated if
the eastern half of the right-of-way is not 30 feet from centerline.
2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
St. Vincent Circle and McKinley Street.
3. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
University Avenue and St. Vincent Circle.
4. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to western
portion of St. Vincent Circle with the planned development. The new curb
line should match the curb line on the eastern portion of St. Vincent Circle.
5. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan to be
installed along University Avenue, St. Vincent Circle and McKinley Street.
6. University Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
7. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The width of driveway must
not exceed 36 feet. The minimum driveway spacing on a principal arterial
street (University Avenue) is 300 feet from another driveway or intersection
and 150 feet from property line. The proposed driveways on University
Avenue do not meet the spacing requirement.
8. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The driveway spacing on a
commercial street (St. Vincent Circle) is at least 250 feet from another
driveway or intersection and at least 150 feet from the property line. The
proposed driveways on St. Vincent Circle do not meet the spacing
requirement.
9. Due to the many changes made to the original site plan including the
changes to the types and amount of uses on the site, the submitted traffic
E
FILE NO.: Z-4953-13 Cont.
study dated February 18, 2008, is no longer applicable. Please resubmit an
updated Traffic Study addressing total trip generation, trip distribution, traffic
signal operation/coordination, levels of service and traffic circulation. At the
time the updated traffic study is submitted, additional comments maybe
made relating to traffic.
10. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
11. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way
from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner).
12. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site if the
amount of cut and fill is equal to or greater than 1000 cubic yards or if
vertical cuts and fills are greater than 10 feet. Site grading, and drainage
plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of
construction.
13. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
14. Storm water detention will not apply to the proposed development due to the
amount of proposed impervious surface is comparable to the amount of
existing impervious surface.
15. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
16. Coordinate design of traffic signal upgrade with proposed street
improvements. Plans to be forwarded to Traffic Engineering for approval.
17. Smaller scaled plans are desired to be submitted for all future reviews.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center -Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding the size and location of the water meter(s). On site fire
protection and additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock
Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the
hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for
5
FILE NO.; Z -4953-B (Cont.
installation of the hydrant(s). This development will have minor impact on the
existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to
provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Plannina: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on a major connecting point between five CATA
routes. In order to prevent major tie-ups along St. Vincent Circle a bus pullout
lane of at least 140 -feet must be available along westbound St. Vincent Circle
between South University Avenue and McKinley Street. The current curb lane
along the south side of St. Vincent Circle for eastbound buses must also be
maintained. The final street configuration for St. Vincent Circle should allow for a
minimum of two lanes in each direction. One of the two lanes will be used for
bus loading; the other lane will be used for through traffic.
F. ISSUESITECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant
has applied for a Planned Commercial Development to allow development of a
mixed use development containing commercial, office, cinema, hotel, and
residential.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan
Master Street Plan: South University is shown as a Principal Arterial. The
primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect
major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and
exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on
South University Avenue since it is a Principal Arterial. St. Vincent Circle and
McKinley Street are both shown as Local Streets. The primary function of a
Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are
abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes
are considered as "Commercial Streets". These streets have a design standard
the same as a Collector. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way
and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in this immediate area.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the Briarwood Neighborhood
Plan, but the plan does not address this issue.
Parks and Recreation: Encourage pedestrian/bicycle links to War Memorial
Park. Contact the Parks and Recreation Department for additional information.
L
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
LgDdscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City's landscape, buffer ordinance and the
Midtown Design Overlay District requirements unless variances are approved.
2. Additional street trees are recommended on the site's perimeters and
vehicular access areas.
3. Special attention should be given to this highly pedestrian development for
open shared space opportunities and additional green space(s).
4. This site will be reviewed as an overall development plan; therefore, the site's
entirety will need to be automatically irrigated and have a landscape plan with
the stamp of a licensed Landscape Architect.
5. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of eight percent (8%) of the
paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 %2 feet in width
and 300 square feet in area. The proposed plan does not currently reflect this
minimum requirement.
6. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will- be necessary to provide an
approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 6, 2008)
Mr. Chuck Keller was present representing the application. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development stating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated the first set of comments
were related to the Midtown Design Overlay District and were being provided for
the developer to address for compliance or non-compliance. Staff stated the
areas the developer was not complying with would require a notation in the
write-up and approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors. Staff
stated the Planning Staff comments were to address additional information
needed by staff for inclusion in the write-up and recommendation. Staff noted
the site plan as proposed did not provide connectivity through the site, the
parking lots were not providing pedestrian tables and staff questioned the intent
of building signage. Staff stated dumpster facilities would require screening and
site lighting was not be directed downward and into the site. Staff noted the DOD
addressed lighting, establishing minimum and maximum foot candles.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the Master Street Plan
and the Boundary Street ordinances would require dedications and street
construction to the abutting streets. Staff also stated any broken curb, gutter or
sidewalk damaged in the right of way would require replacing prior to occupancy,
Staff stated a grading permit would be required and a storm water permit would
be required prior to the start of construction.
7
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated eight percent of the
vehicular use area would require landscaping in landscape islands at least
300 square feet in area. Staff stated a landscape plan would be required prior to
the issuance of a building permit. Staff also stated the site would require
automatic irrigation to water landscaped areas. Staff noted the site would require
compliance with the Midtown Design Overlay District and the City's landscape
and buffer ordinances unless variations were approved.
Staff noted comments received from CATA. Staff stated CATA desired a bus
pull -off along the south side of the site. Staff also noted comments from the
various other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant
contact them directly for additional information. There was no further discussion
of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and cover letter to staff addressing
most of the issues raised at the March 6, 2008, Subdivision Committee meeting.
The revisions include the proposed signage plan, pedestrian connectivity and a
note indicating site lighting at the property line will be zero.
The following is a listing of the specific requirements of the Midtown Overlay
District and the applicant's proposal for meeting the typical requirements. For
any new development, redevelopment exceeding 50 percent or expansion of an
existing development by more than 50 percent a PZD application is required.
Midtown Overlay =District Applicant's Proposal
A planned zoning district process shall
The development is proposed as new
be required for a new development,
construction therefore a rezoning from
redevelopment exceeding 50 percent of
C-3, General Commercial District to
the structure's current replacement
PCD is required.
value based on its configuration at the
time of the DOD's adoption, and for
expansion of existing developments
exceeding 50 percent of the structure's
current square footage at the time of
the DOD's adoption. Routine repairs,
maintenance and interior alterations to
accommodate existing, expanding or
new tenants within the existing building
envelope shall not require compliance
n.
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
with Chapter 36, Article 10 (Midtown
Design Overlay District). The proposed
planned zoning development shall be
reviewed to realize a development plan
that is consistent with the purpose and
intent of the Midtown Design Overlay
District.
For a new development or structure of
over 100,000 square feet (excluding
structured parking), a mix of uses must
be provided. This mix may occur either
under the same roof or in adjacent
structures as part of a common
development. In order to be considered
a mix, the new development must
either:
Devote the majority of its leasable
ground floor space to a secondary use
i.e. retail in a multi -story office building;
or
Devote ten percent of the gross
leasable area of a single building to the
secondary use i.e. residential on the
upper levels of a multi -story office, retail
or institutional building; or
Devote fifteen percent of the gross
leasable area to a secondary use in a
separate building constructed and
occupied at the same time as the
primary structure i.e. a restaurant on a
pad adjacent to an office building.
The Midtown Design Overlay District
requires developments in excess of
200,000 square feet to contain a
residential component. The residential
may be in the same structure or a
X
The proposal is for a mixed-use
development containing retail and
residential; both in separate buildings
or as mixed uses within multi -story
buildings.
Park Avenue will contain the required
residential component. However, the
residential or hotel at the northwest
corner of the property (separate
structure) may be constructed in a
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B Cont.
separate structure, as long as the
separate structure is part of the overall
development and the overall
development is built simultaneously.
For any development constructed in
phases, a portion of the secondary
uses shall be included in the initial
phases.
Fagade treatment — for new
construction at least 60 percent of the
ground floor level facing internal
pedestrian public circulation areas or
streets shall be glass -windows, entry
features or displays.
The primary facade of a building shall
be oriented parallel with the street, or to
the principal vehicular or pedestrian
routes of travel whether public or
private.
Buildings shall maintain a distinction
between upper and lower levels; an
elevation greater than 18 feet in height
shall contain an architectural treatment,
which visually divides the structure into
stories.
Wall projections or recesses a minimum
of three feet deep and a minimum of 20
continuous feet not to extend over 20
percent of the facade shall be required.
Arches, display windows, entry areas or
awnings shall exist along at least 60
percent of the facade.
separate phase as shown on the site
plan (phasing).
Some of the buildings will not contain a
minimum of 60 percent of the ground
floor as glass -windows, entry features
or displays.
The primary facade of the building will
be oriented parallel to the private
vehicular routes of travel within the
development.
Architectural treatments are indicated
on the multi -story buildings to visually
divide the structure into stories. The
proposed elevations for the major
anchor indicate an attempt to visually
break up the height of the structure
through the use of different colors and
materials.
Projections will be included along the
facades to break the massing of the
structure. Some of the buildings will
not contain arches, display windows,
entry areas or awnings along at least
60 percent of the facade.
Entryway — Primary entrances shall be The primary entrances will be oriented
oriented to the street or to the principal to the vehicular or pedestrian routes
vehicular or pedestrian routes of travel within the development.
within a development.
10
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
Buildings shall have clearly defined and
visible customer entrances featuring
elements such as overhangs, arcades,
arches, canopies, peaked roof forms,
display windows.
All sides of buildings that face abutting
public or private rights of way, except
alleys, shall feature at least one
customer entrance.
Elevations - No elevation facing an
arterial or greater street shall be
primarily used as a service entry or
otherwise be treated as the rear of the
structures.
New construction wider than 100 linear
feet shall be visually massed so as to
break the structure visually.
Rooflines shall be varied with changes
in height every 100 liner feet in building
length. Parapets, mansard roofs, gable
roofs, high roofs, shall be used to
conceal flat roofs and roof top
equipment.
Exterior building materials and colors
shall be aesthetically pleasing and
compatible with materials and colors
used in neighboring developments.
Predominant exterior building materials
shall be of high quality materials; such
as but not limited to: brick, wood, store,
tinted, stucco, EIFS (Exterior Insulation
Finish System) concreted masonry
units. Facade colors — shall be low
reflectant, subtle, neutral or earth tone
with trim and accents brighter colors.
The buildings will contain clearly
defined and visible customer entrances
featuring elements such as overhangs,
arcades, arches, canopies, peaked
roof forms, and display windows.
The buildings will not contain customer
entrances on all abutting streets.
The elevations abutting South
University Avenue will be designed as
four (4) sided buildings and will not be
used as a service entry or treated as
the rear of the buildings.
Based on the information provided to
staff, it appears the buildings will be
constructed to visually break the mass
of the structure through the use of
various materials and colors.
The site plan appears to comply with
this typical standard. There may be
exceptions on Anchors 1 and 3 based
on the information provided to staff.
The development will be constructed
with painted concrete tilt wall, masonry
veneer, stone veneer or CMU block,
Glass storefronts, Metal panels,
Painted metal, Plaster or EIFS,
Perforated metal screens, Composite
wood panels.
Predominant exterior building materials I The development will utilize tilt -up
11
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
shall not be smooth -faced concrete
concrete panels. The panels will be
block, tilt -up concrete panels or
scored for visual aesthetics.
prefabricated steel panels.
Projections (all requirements for a
Not applicable,
franchise remain in place). Objects
shall not project from the building
facade over the public right of way
except for awnings, signs, and
balconies.
Awnings shall not project more than five
Not applicable.
(5) feet from the building facade and
have a minimum clearance of nine (9)
feet above pedestrian areas and
thirteen (13) feet above vehicular areas.
Balconies over the public right-of-way
Not applicable.
shall have a minimum clearance of nine
(9) feet above the sidewalk. One (1)
inch of projection is permitted for each
additional inch of clearance above eight
(8) feet, provided that no such
projection shall exceed a distance of
four (4) feet. Balconies shall not be
supported with posts extending to the
sidewalk. Mounting heights for balcony
brackets shall conform to minimum
clearance standards.
Building height — No building hereafter
erected or structural altered shall
exceed a height of 60 feet, except as
provided below. Structures may have a
greater height as follows, and these
bonuses may be cumulative:
Any structure that is certified by CATA
as provide a portion of the structure for
mass transit is entitled to add 15 -feet.
Structures with a mix of uses with the
street -level primarily devoted to retail
uses and at lease 50 percent of these
uses having direct access to the street,
is entitled to add 25 feet to the
12
The maximum building height will be
105 feet.
The buildings along the "main street"
driveway are a maximum of 5 -stories
in height. The buildings contain
ground floor retail and 4 stories of
residential. The northern buildings
incorporate access to the existing
parking deck. The southern buildings
are located over the underground
parking garage.
The proposed building height of 105
feet is less than the 110 allowed with
the bonuses if consideration is given
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
structure; alternately a development for use of the existing parking deck
with an integrated parking facility and underground garage.
substantially located within the footprint
of the primary structure, is entitled to
add 25 feet to the structure.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, any
structure located north of West
Markham Street and east of University
shall be limited to a height of 35 feet.
Building setbacks from property lines
The property fronts onto S. University
and street rights of way shall be:
Avenue. It appears 2 of the 3 buildings
streets must have lanes at least ten feet
along the street are set in excess of
Front yard setbacks may be zero but
the 20 -foot typical requirement.
will not be more than 20 -feet excepting
in those cases where grade changes
make such setbacks impractical.
Side yard setbacks may be zero except
There is not residential abutting the
where adjacent to lots containing
development.
single-family detached structures. In
this case the side yard setback shall be
a setback of not less than four (4) feet.
The drives are located in excess of
Rear yard setback may be zero, except
There is not residential abutting the
where adjacent to lots containing
development.
single-family detached structures. In
this case the rear yard setback shall
have a setback of not less than 25 -feet.
Driveways, Sidewalks and Alleys —
The development is requesting the
Driveways and internal circulation
allowance of 15 -foot drive lanes.
streets must have lanes at least ten feet
in width, but not more than 12 feet
excepting that width needed for bike
lanes or special pedestrian
accommodations.
Intersections of internal drives or
The development appears to be
streets will be minimally controlled by
complying.
stop signs, and will feature special
crossway paving or treated surfaces.
Access driveways running parallel with
The drives are located in excess of
the street shall not create a four-way
125 -feet from the street intersections.
13
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B Cont.
intersection within 125 feet of the
Some of the drives do not have
sidewalks located along both sides.
ultimate curb line of the public street.
Some of the walks are indicated less
No more than one curb cut per block
There are 2 driveways on each street
face shall be permitted. Driveways and
perimeter. The property has more
parking lot entrances -exit shall be
than 2 blocks of frontage on each
combined and where appropriate
street.
located in alleys.
pedestrian linkages to structures within
Sidewalks and Pedestrian walkways —
All driveways and internal streets shall
have minimum five foot sidewalks on
both sides located away from the back
of curb.
Some of the drives do not have
sidewalks located along both sides.
All sidewalks fronting buildings with
Some of the walks are indicated less
ground floor retail shall be at least 10
than ten (10) feet.
feet in width.
Protected pedestrian walkways shall be
Crosswalks shall be incorporated at
provided through parking lots.
strategic locations to provide
pedestrian linkages to structures within
All developments shall include as part
the development.
of their site plan pedestrian linkages
through parking areas and to adjacent
buildings or developments.
Alleys — shall not be more than 20 -feet
wide unless needed for emergency
access. Where an alley runs along a
property line, it shall be screened from
the adjacent property by a permanent
wall of high quality materials compatible
with neighboring buildings.
All new utilities for developments within
the District shall be buried. All new
developments shall underground all
utilities onsite or within adjacent public
right of way wherever determined by
the utility agency to be feasible.
14
Not applicable. There are no alleys
located within the development.
All new utilities for the proposed
development will be buried where
technically feasible.
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
Trash enclosures shall be located in
alleys wherever available or in common
service areas for multiple
developments.
In all areas, service and waste removal
areas shall be screened and located
away from public outdoor spaces and
pedestrian. Dumpster screening shall
comply with Section 36-523.
Parking facilities = wherever feasible,
multilevel parking structures shall be
encouraged. Surface parking shall be
limited to the side and rear of
structures, unless grouped in quantities
of 50 spaces or less separated by a
landscaping strip no less than the
perimeter landscape strip as required
for the property by Chapter 15 of the
code or a structure from other vehicular
areas and having no more than one
vehicular connection to another surface
parking area. Surface parking areas
should be broken up or distributed
around large structures so as to shorten
the distance to other buildings and
public sidewalks. For corner lots,
parking is allowed along the side street
frontage.
Parking requirements within the District
shall be 50 percent of that required by
Article VII of Chapter 36. The
maximum allowed parking shall be the
minimum standard established in Article
VII of Chapter 36.
Waste removal areas shall be
screened and located away from public
outdoor spaces and pedestrians when
physically possible.
The applicant is utilizing an existing
parking structure and is proposing to
construct an underground parking
garage.
A portion of the parking fields contain
more than 50 spaces.
The maximum parking allowed for the
development is 3,325 spaces. The
minimum parking allowed is 1,662
spaces. The development is proposed
to contain 1,798 spaces.
Shared parking. As an alternative to Not applicable.
subsection (f)(2) above, mixed-use
developments may utilize the shared
parking methodologies developed by
the Urban Land Institute and published
15
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
in Shared Parking (Second Edition,
2005) by Mary S. Smith, et al. A project
may elect this means of determining the
total parking requirement by submitting
a parking demand analysis prepared by
a qualified parking or traffic consultant,
a licensed architect, city planner, or
urban planner or civil engineer.
On -street parking. On -street parking on
internal streets or circulation routes
shall be allowed and may count
towards the parking requirement. On -
street parking is permitted either
parallel, in areas in front of, or adjacent
to, retail or commercial entries. Angled
street (drive) parking shall not be
permitted on streets (drives) that
provide the development majority
access. Such parking may count
towards the overall project parking
requirements. No on -street parking
shall be allowed on University Avenue
or Markham Street.
No parking shall be allowed in the front
yard setback area.
Parking garage design — Parking
facilities should be designed consistent
with the overall project design. Where
possible, other uses, residential or
commercial should be used to wrap or
otherwise block the view of a parking
garage.
Signage — Signage shall comply with
Article X except as follows — No off-site
advertising signs are permitted. No
pole mounted signs are permitted.
Monument signs are to identify the
development and be limited to 72
square feet in area and 6 feet in height
for developments greater than one
16
Not applicable.
Some of the parking will be located
within the front yard setback of South
University Avenue.
The development is utilizing an
existing parking structure (682
spaces). The structure will be
screened from view in most locations.
An underground parking garage is also
being constructed (207 spaces).
No off-site signage is proposed. The
development is proposing signage
larger than typically allowed.
Four major tenant identification signs
are proposed with a height of 36 feet
and a sign area of 430 square feet.
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
acre. Signage integrated into
free-standing vertical structures whose
design theme and materials are directly
related to the primary development may
be submitted for approval under the
PZD process if located along University
southerly of Lee. No single elevation or
face of such a structure shall be more
than 400 square feet.
The total area of the sign structures is
720 square feet (36'X 20').
No street buffer or landscaping is
Landscaping will be placed along
required along streets classified less
South University Avenue where the
than an arterial. When the structure is
building is not placed at the zero
not built to the property line,
setback and where conflicts do not
landscaping is required in the area
exist.
between the building and property line
up to that required in Chapter 15 of the
Code.
Land use buffers shall only be provided
Not applicable.
where single-family and duplex use or
zoning is the abutting use. In those
cases where a land use buffer is
required, buffers shall be the same as
those for multi -family uses in Section
36-522(b)(1). In areas where terrain
variation is great or other features result
in the loss of privacy, alternative
designs and massing shall be
considered.
Common use areas and plazas shall be
The site plan indicates the placement
a minimum of 300 square feet for
of 42,800 square feet of open space.
30,000 square foot structures. For
each additional 5,000 square feet or
portion thereof, a minimum of an
additional 50 square feet of plaza area
is required.
Surface parking lots shall meet all
The surface lots will meet the
current landscape requirements.
requirements of Chapter 15.
Street trees shall be a minimum of I Street trees will meet this requirement
3 -inch caliper and shall be 2 feet off the I as well as 4' planter strip, where
17
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
back of curb, 30 feet on center. The
canopy shall be maintained with an
8 foot clearance. A four foot planter
strip shall be maintained.
possible. Conflicts could be
encountered along portions of
University and St. Vincent's where
existing structures or utilities exist.
Common use areas and plazas shall be
Common areas will be maintained by a
maintained by a common authority.
common authority by private document
Attempts shall be made to maintain
such as an "Operating and Easement
vegetation, trees, bushes, in
Agreement" between the parties within
undisturbed conditions to serve the
the project.
aesthetic, recreational and ecological
needs of the district. Trees planted in
these areas shall be a minimum of two
inches in caliper and ten feet in height.
Trees greater than 14 inches in
There are no trees located on this site.
diameter, measured at 4 Y2 feet above
the ground, shall be protected from
removal and damages in future
development of the district. Any
development within 50 feet of such tree
shall be reviewed prior to development
to assure protective measures are
included and in place.
Lighting shall conform to the design
overlay district standards. The intent is
to prevent light from commercial
developments from excessively
illuminating the property in question,
other properties or the night sky. Only
light fixtures which are categorized as
full cut-off fixtures shall be permitted.
The use of fully shielded floodlights are
permitted but not encouraged.
The ordinance provides for the
following specific standards for lighting
intensity based upon the activities
performed involved. Values are
presented in allowable foot candles (fc)
maintained (measured horizontally) at
grade and are to be averaged
throughout the site to avoid hot spots,
i.e. areas of extreme light intensity
relative to the remainder of the site:
in
The maximum allowable fixture
mounting height is proposed to be 38
feet. The photometric plan will provide
that foot candle at the property line will
be zero.
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
Pedestrian areas/sidewalks
Pedestrian areas / sidewalks
Minimum 0.2 fc Maximum 1.0 fc
Minimum 5.0 fc Maximum 18.0 fc
Building entries
Building entries
Minimum 1.0 fc Maximum 10.0 fc
Minimum 5.0 fc Maximum 18.0 fc
Street lighting
Minimum 0.2 fc Maximum 1.0 fc
Has not been addressed.
Parking area
Parking areas
Minimum 2.0 fc Maximum 4.0 fc
Minimum 5.0 fc Maximum 18.0 fc
Playgrounds
Not applicable.
Maximum 5.0 fc
Sports grounds
Not applicable.
Maximum 20.2 fc
Site perimeter
Site perimeter
Maximum 0.5 fc
Minimum 5.0 fc Maximum 18.0 fc
f
Gas station canopies shall be
Not applicable.
illuminated at a maximum luminance of
thirty (30) fc and individual fixtures shall
be flush mounted or have the canopy
edge below the lowest light -emitting
point on the fixtures. All existing gas
station canopies that exceed this
standard shall be made compliant
within seven (7) years of the date of
adoption of this article.
Up lighting may be used to illuminate a
Has not been addressed by the
building, landscaping element or
applicant.
architectural feature, provided the
lighting design has a maximum
luminance of twelve (12) fc, measured
in a vertical plane. Down lighting is
preferred.
A lighting plan shall be submitted for Will comply.
staff review and approval prior to
issuance of building permits. The plan
shall contain the following information:
`R
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
An area lighting plan, drawn to scale,
indicating all structures, parking lots,
building entrances, vehicular and
pedestrian traffic areas, vegetation that
may interfere with lighting, and adjacent
land uses that may be adversely
impacted by the lighting. The plan shall
contain a layout of all proposed fixtures
by location, orientation, aiming
direction, mounting height and type.
The submission shall include, in
addition to proposed area lighting, all
other exterior lighting, e.g.,
architectural, building entrance,
landscape, flagpole, sign, etc.
A ten -foot by ten -foot luminance grid
(point -by -point) of maintained foot-
candles overlaid on the site plan plotted
out to 0.0 foot-candles, which
demonstrates compliance with light
intensity standards.
Property, if for any reason, that cannot
be developed without violating the
standards of this article shall be
reviewed through the planned zoning
district (PZD) section of the zoning
ordinance, with the intent to devise a
workable development plan which is
consistent with the purpose and intent
of the overlay standards.
The property is being considered as a
PZD.
The site plan also indicates the placement of building signage along the interior
drive and along the street sides. The development is proposed as a "Life Style
Center'' with a main street feel. The fronts of the buildings will be located along
the interior drive and the signage in this location will allow identification of the
tenants. In addition, the request is also to allow wall signage along the street
sides.
Building signage is intended to allow window, blade, awning and building signage
for the retail and theatre uses. Sign totals will equal 10% of the height multiplied
by the width of the fascia area to be "signed". For freestanding buildings,
20
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
building signage would be allowed on three sides, except the second or third sign
area total would be reduced by half, as an example:
A. Primary Entrance Elevation: Assuming 190' wide and 30' tall x 10% would
allow 570 total square feet for all building, blade window and/or awning
signs on the front elevation.
B. Rear Elevation: Assuming 190' wide and 30' tall x 5% would allow
285 total square feet for all building, blade window and/or awning signs on
the rear elevation.
C. Side Elevation: Assuming 160' wide and 30' tall x 5% would allow
240 total square feet for all building, blade window and/or awning signs on
the side elevation.
Buildings with a second entrance "end -cap" or two faced storefronts would be
allowed a second sign as described in B or C above.
The development is proposing to place an identification sign at the St.
Vincent's/South University Avenue entrance mounted on the existing wall. The
sign is proposed with individual letters and project logo with a maximum area of
100 square feet. Two tenant identification signs are proposed with a maximum
height of six feet and a maximum sign area of 52 square feet. The signs will be
masonry sign constructed of materials used on the shopping center building.
Four shopping center identification sign are proposed with a maximum height of
36 -feet and a maximum sign area of 430 square feet. The signage is larger than
signage typically allowed per the Overlay District. The signage is proposed with
an overall dimension of 36 feet in height and 20 feet in width. Seasonal Banners
will be placed on light poles within the development.
The applicant has indicated all mechanical equipment will be roof mounted and
screened from view by parapet walls. The applicant has also indicated the low
architectural walls mansard roofs, parapets, gable or high roofs conforming to the
general architectural theme of the center.
All dumpster facilities will be screened with structurally sound materials that use
materials directly used on the face of adjacent structures, and will be at locations
accessible to tenants; exact locations as yet undetermined. Any dumpsters
located in an area visible from the street will be additionally screened with trees
and/or hedges.
The applicant has indicated the street buffer along South University Avenue to
meet the minimum ordinance requirement of nine feet. The applicant has also
included landscape islands within the development to soften the impact of the on
site paved area. Pedestrian accesses are indicated to the site from all three
abutting streets.
21
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
The development is proposed to contain six lots. The lots have been indicated to
allow the developer flexibility should a potential user desire to own their own
property. The development will be served by an Operating and Easement
Agreement, which will define cross access and cross parking agreements within
the development.
The development is proposed to contain 748,250 square feet of both residential
and commercial space and a total of 1,798 parking spaces. Of the 1,798 parking
spaces, 889 spaces (49 percent) are located within the existing parking deck or
the proposed underground parking garage. The site is proposed with
27.2 percent of the site covered with buildings and 25.8 percent of the site
covered with parking. The site plan indicates the placement of 42,800 square
feet of open space. The plaza area contains 15,760 square feet of open space
area and an additional 16,970 square feet of hardscaped in font of the buildings.
A 1,210 square foot open space area has been indicated with an architectural
landmark at the western end of the plaza drive. The remainder of the open
space is located distributed throughout the site. Based on the DOD, a total of
14,913 square feet of open space would typically be required.
Included within the 748,250 square feet of building area is 429,000 square feet of
residential or 57.3 percent. The residential units are proposed with
approximately 900 square feet of livable space per unit and a maximum of
476 units are proposed. The developer has indicated the northwestern building
with alternative uses. The building is indicated with 162 apartment units or with a
127 room hotel. The building is proposed with four stories.
The site plan indicates a dedication of right of way per the Master Street Plan for
McKinley Street along the northern portion of the development. The site plan
indicates a dedication of 45 -feet. There is an existing 35 -foot street easement in
this area which will be publicly dedicated. A 60 -foot right of way is in place along
the southern portion of the development. The developer is requesting a waiver of
the right of way dedication along South University Avenue. The developer has
indicated sidewalks will be provided along St. Vincent's Circle and McKinley
Street north to the proposed drive of the hotel/apartment building. The request
includes a variance along McKinley Street to allow five-foot sidewalks
immediately adjacent to the curb. The request includes a variance from Sections
30-43 and 31-210 for driveway locations and widths on South University and
St. Vincent's.
An additional 140 linear feet within the proposed development for a bus pullout
lane is not feasible according to the developer due to the existing conditions
along St. Vincent's. The current grades allow access to the proposed
development in an area limited to approximately 140 linear feet along the south
property line. Within the area the developer will be handling the service/loading
areas of Anchors 1, 2 and 3, the south customer entrance to the development
and the pedestrian connectivity to the southern properties. The development will
22
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont_)
construct an additional lane to St. Vincent's Circle allowing for the bus to stop
within the public right of way and allowing one lane of continued flow of traffic.
The developer is seeking a variance to allow an increased wall height along
McKinley Street. According to the developer a portion of the western wall may
exceed the 15 -foot maximum wall height allowed per the Land Alteration
Ordinance.
The developer's traffic engineer is working with City staff to determine the
capacities of the intersection of West Markham and McKinley Streets. The
existing lane configuration will be restriped to allow for one right, one left and one
combination left -through lane.
Staff is continuing to review the site plan. Staffs recommendation is forthcoming.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommendation forthcoming.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(MARCH 27, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated
based on the number of comments raised at the March 6, 2008, Subdivision Committee
meeting, staff and the applicant requested the item be deferred to the May 8, 2008,
public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval of the deferral request. The
motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff and the applicant have continued to meet to resolve outstanding issues.
On April 30, 2008, both parties agreed to defer the item to allow time to address those
issues. Staff recommends approval of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(MAY 8, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated
the applicant and staff had continued to meet to resolve outstanding issues and
on April 30, 2008, both parties agreed to defer the item to the May 22, 2008,
public hearing to allow time to address outstanding issues. Staff presented a positive
recommendation of the deferral request.
23
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
There was no further discussion of the item. The commission voted to approve the item
for deferral on the consent agenda by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
(MAY 22, 2008)
In staffs opinion Park Avenue has done a good job in trying to meet the development
criteria as established by the Mid -town Design Overlay District Ordinance. The
developers are providing a mixed-use development with residential and retail activities
to create a 24-7 environment on this site. The proposed retail uses are those identified
in the ULI Study and the Statement of Design and Programming Expectations. The
retail uses proposed include uses, which will meet the needs of the nearby
neighborhood residents. Placement of the cinema on the site further connects the
development with the neighborhood by providing a use that is currently not available to
the neighborhood.
The site contains two (2) large retailers as Anchors, which typically have criteria that
must be meet with regard to parking lot layout and a minimum criteria established for
the number parking spaces. The applicant is utilizing a parking deck and underground
parking to help reduce the number of surface parking spaces. The development
includes the placement of nearly 50 percent of the site's parking within the existing
garage or underground. Based on the current ordinance standard, parking for a
shopping center would be calculated at one space per 225 square feet of gross leasable
space. This development would typically be required to have 3,325 spaces. By
assessing the parking based on the individual uses of the center; residential, retail,
cinema, hotel, etc. the required parking would be 1,811 parking spaces. The Mid -town
Design Overlay District states parking may be as few as 50 percent of the requirement
but no more than the maximum allowed by the ordinance. The development is
proposed to have 1,798 spaces. The proposed number of parking spaces falls within
the standards established by the Overlay.
However, the site plan proposes large fields of parking that do not comply with the
standards established by the Overlay or the Statement of Expectations. Breaking up or
redistribution of the parking areas is encouraged by the Overlay. The Overlay states
surface parking shall be limited to the side and rear of the structure, unless grouped in
quantities of 50 spaces or less separated by a landscaping strip no less than the
perimeter landscape strip as required for the property by Chapter 15 of the code. The
Overlay states no parking shall be allowed within the front yard setback area. The site
plan as proposed does include parking within the front yard setback of South University
Avenue.
The common use area has been enlarged. The site plan indicates the placement of
15,760 square feet of common use area within the Plaza Area. Based on the Design
Overlay District requirements, a total of 14,913 square feet of common use area would
be required.
24
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
Per the Design Overlay, the fagade treatment for new construction must include at least
60 percent of the ground floor level facing internal pedestrian public circulation areas or
streets to be glass -windows, entry features or displays. Some of the buildings as
proposed will not contain the minimum of 60 percent of the ground floor as
glass -windows, entry features or displays. Per the Overlay, buildings are to maintain a
distinction between upper and lower levels. Elevation greater than 18 feet in height
shall contain an architectural treatment, which visually divides the structure into stories.
The building elevations provided indicate architectural treatments on the multi -story
buildings to visually divide the structure into stories. The proposed elevations for the
major anchor have indicated an attempt to visually break up the height of the structure
through the use of different colors and materials.
Wall projections or recesses a minimum of three feet deep and a minimum of
20 continuous feet not to extend over 20 percent of the fagade shall be required per the
Overlay. Arches, display windows, entry areas or awnings shall exist along at least
60 percent of the facade. Projections will be included along the facades to break the
massing of the structure. Some of the buildings abutting the public rights of way will not
contain arches, display windows, entry areas or awnings along the fagade as required
by the Overlay. Per the Overlay, the primary fagade and primary entrances of a building
shall be oriented parallel with the street, or to the principal vehicular or pedestrian
routes of travel whether public or private. The primary facade and building entrance of
the Anchor buildings will be oriented parallel to the private vehicular routes of travel
within the development. All sides of buildings that face abutting public or private rights
of way, except alleys, shall feature at least one customer entrance. The buildings as
proposed will not contain customer entrances on all abutting streets. The buildings are
proposed with customer entrances on one side only. Rooflines are to be varied with
changes in height every 100 linear feet in building length. Parapets, mansard roofs,
gable roofs, high roofs, shall be used to conceal flat roofs and roof top equipment. The
site plan appears to comply with this standard. Possible exceptions on Anchors 1 and 3
may be required based on the information provided to staff. The elevation and roofline
variations of Anchor 1 have not been clearly defined to indicate the variations in
materials and height to break the visual massing of the building.
The lighting proposed for the site exceeds the maximum intensity typically allowed by
the Overlay. The applicant has stated all lighting will be contained within the site with
zero foot candles present at the property line.
There are four (4) individual tenant identification signs and all exceed the allowable
maximums of 72 square feet in area and 6 feet in height. The individual tenant
identification signs are proposed with a height of 36 feet and a sign area of 430 square
feet. There are four complex signs indicated. Per the Overlay, signage integrated into
free-standing vertical structures whose design theme and materials are directly related
to the primary development may be submitted for approval under the PZD process if
located along University southerly of Lee. No single elevation or face of such a
structure shall be more than 400 square feet. The total area of the complex sign
structures is 720 square feet (36' X 20').
25
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
Two of the three out -lots adjacent to University Avenue have buildings with setbacks
proposed in excess of the typical maximum allowed by the Overlay. The Overlay states
front yard setbacks may be zero but will not be more than 20 -feet excepting in those
cases where grade changes make such setbacks impractical. Additionally, parking on
these out -lots is located within the front yard setback.
The Overlay states all driveways and internal streets shall have minimum five foot
sidewalks on both sides located away from the back of curb. Some of the drives do not
have sidewalks located along both sides. The Overlay also states all developments are
to include as part of their site plan pedestrian linkages through parking areas and to
adjacent buildings or developments. Crosswalks shall be incorporated at strategic
locations to provide pedestrian linkages to structures within the development. It
appears that there are areas within the development where pedestrian linkage is
inadequate.
The request includes a waiver of the right of way dedication for South University
Avenue. The existing right of way is five (5) feet short of the required right of way per
the Master Street Plan. Staff is supportive of the requested waiver of right of way
dedication.
While staff is generally supportive of the applicant's proposal for a mixed-use
redevelopment of this site, there are concerns related to the overall design concept and
some of the areas of non-compliance with the Midtown Design Overlay District criteria.
Based on the site plan it appears some elements of the project have the look and feel of
a typical suburban retail shopping center development with large anchor tenants and
large parking fields. Staff has concerns with the internal connectivity of the
development and the connectivity of the development with the adjoining neighborhood
and businesses. A portion of the site is indicated as a "main street" town center
development and establishes a sense of place but the sense of place has not been
integrated with the remainder of the development. Staff does not feel the development
is meeting the purpose and intent of the Mid -town Design Overlay District and the
expectations of the Statement of Design and Programming Expectations for the
Redevelopment of the University Mall. Based on these concerns, staff is not supportive
of the development plan as proposed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(MAY 22, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of non-support for the request. Staff stated the
development plan included 748,250 square feet of total building area utilizing the
existing two story parking structure as well as an underground parking garage that
would sit under one of the retail/multi-family building pods. The development was
proposed containing 1,798 parking spaces. Staff stated of the parking provided nearly
50 percent of the parking was located within the parking structure or underground. Staff
stated the development was proposed containing approximately 80,000 square feet of
retail/restaurant space, 213,000 square feet of larger retail anchor space a 27,000
0401
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
square foot cinema with an estimated seating capacity of 1,300 persons, a residential
component containing a maximum of 476 units and a 127 room hotel which was
indicated as a potential multi -family apartment building with a maximum of 162 units.
Staff stated the building lot coverage was 336,250 square feet or 27.2 percent and the
parking lot coverage was 319,600 square feet or 25.8 percent. Staff stated the
development was indicated with common usable area totaling 15,760 square feet within
the plaza area of the town center. Staff stated additional common use areas were
indicated through out the site. Staff noted there was a variance from the Land Alteration
Ordinance to allow an increased wall height for the retaining wall located along
McKinley Street. Staff stated the developers were also seeking a waiver of the required
right of way dedication for South University Avenue. Staff stated they were supportive
of the variance request from the Land Alteration Ordinance and the waiver of right of
way dedication for South University Avenue.
Staff stated in their opinion Park Avenue had done a good job in trying to meet the
development criteria as established by the Mid -town Design Overlay District Ordinance.
Staff stated the developers were providing a mixed-use development with residential
and retail activities to create a 24-7 environment on the site. Staff stated the proposed
retail uses were those identified in the ULI Study and the Statement of Design and
Programming Expectations. Staff stated the retail uses proposed included uses, which
would meet the needs of the nearby neighborhood residents. Staff stated the
placement of the cinema on the site further connected the development with the
neighborhood by providing a use that was currently not available to the neighborhood.
Mr. Chuck Keller addressed the Commission on behalf of the development team. He
stated there had been numerous meeting with staff, area residents and the mid -town
redevelopment committee. He stated the site was limited by the access drives and the
grade of the site. He stated the desire to retain the existing parking structure also
constrained the development possibilities of the site. Mr. Keller stated the grade of St.
Vincent's Circle limited access points to a narrow 140 -foot area along the crest of the
hill. He stated the large anchor also had criteria that had to be met which also limited
the design capabilities of the site. He stated the anchor did construct two story
buildings but had indicated the two story buildings were limited to dense urban
environments where land and density did not allow for single story structures. He stated
the development was proposed as a median density mixed use development.
Mr. Keller stated based on the evolution of mixed use developments it had been
determined the mixed use concept as proposed was the most successful. He stated the
development was trying to meet the spirit of the Design Overlay District and the
Statement of Expectations.
Mr. Larry Good, the architect for the project, addressed the Commission providing
information of the site constraints and the proposed development rational. He stated
the topo and access were the two primary constraints. He stated the existing parking
structure had been reviewed and determined was suitable for reuse. He stated the
residential, the hotel and the cinema had been placed in the proposed areas to take
advantage of the parking structure. He stated the residences on the south side of the
town center would utilize the underground parking. He stated large retailers had
27
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
specific requirements and if they could not get parking fields in front of the store they
were not likely to locate in the center. He stated the large traditional retailers energized
the small retail shops. He stated the town center was the gateway to the development.
Mr. Good stated the development did not want multiple plaza areas. He stated two
buildings lined the drive to the development, which did not have parking in the front or
side yard. He stated the town center was proposed as a four-story building with ground
level retail and residential on the remaining floors. Mr. Good stated the building was
designed with a ratio of height to width to make the town center inviting. He stated the
four story buildings would define the space and the town center would terminate at the
west end with the placement of an architectural feature.
Mr. Good stated the desire was to create good linkage through the center. He stated the
pedestrian tables were designed to create a safe passageway for the pedestrians
through out the development. He stated the development was breaking the massing of
parking but was not providing parking lots with 50 spaces or fewer. He stated the
perimeter areas would be well handled and landscaped. He stated the open space
provided with the center was triple the required open space of the DOD. Mr. Good
stated the Anchor on McKinley Street was below the grade of McKinley Street, which
would visually break the massing of the structure. He stated changes in the wall plane
and height would also break the massing. Mr. Good stated customer entrances on all
street sides was not feasible. He stated the anchor tenant was not designed to handle
multiple entryways. He stated a defined front entrance would be provided within the
development. He stated consideration would be given to the walls facing McKinley
Street and St. Vincent's Circle to break the massing.
Mr. Jim Bell addressed the Commission in support. He stated he was representing the
Briarwood Neighborhood Association, which had previously sent a letter of opposition.
He stated the residents were in support of the development and understood the need
for the large parking fields in front of Anchor 1. He stated the truck entrance was
originally a concern but the developers had indicated varied paving materials would be
provided to alert the pedestrians and truck traffic of potential conflicts. He stated the
association now understood entrances would be provided from both McKinley and
St. Vincent's Circle to the development. He stated the pedestrian tables proposed were
important to provide connectivity through the site and the neighborhood was in full
support of the tables as proposed. Mr. Bell stated he felt with the redevelopment of this
site the area would see a boost and encourage new growth and businesses in the area.
Mr. Bell stated the Briarwood Neighborhood Association was in full support of the
development as proposed.
Richard Downing addressed the Commission. He stated he previously held a seat on
the Commission and was Chair of the Commission. He stated he was on the
Commission during the time the ULI Study was being prepared for the City and worked
with staff and the Board of Directors to develop the Mid -Town Design Overlay District
Ordinance. He stated he wanted the City to follow through with development as was
planned with the Design Overlay District. He stated the project had a number of quality
attributes but the development also contained a number of attributes the area did not
need. He stated he was not sure the area needed a shopping center with a residential
W
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
component. He stated he felt the Commission should look closely and consider the
request and the proposed uses.
Mr. Craig Berry addressed the Commission with concerns. He stated as Chair of the
Mid -town Advisory Board he wanted to make the Commission aware of concerns. He
stated the Board was friendly to reinvestment. He stated there was some variability to
the site design and program uses. Mr. Berry stated the redevelopment efforts started
eight years ago for the mid -town area. He stated the City developed a DOD for the
area, which established not what was restricted but what was allowed within the District.
He stated the DOD allowed verticality and maximum build -out of the site. He stated he
did not feel the development was providing the maximum economic benefit.
Mr. Berry stated the City needed to review the site to ensure they were not missing
anything. He stated the developers were in a hurry and the review process was tenant
driven. He stated the development would be better suited for a phased review.
Mr. Berry stated the development should create a unique identity to the area when
completed. He stated there were some problems with the site design. He stated the
City had a contact with a design consultant to review the site plan and offer
suggestions. He stated he felt with the assistance of the design review specialist the
development would reach the right balance and feeling of an urban village in mid -town.
Commissioner Meyer asked what would make the development more palatable.
Mr. Berry stated the development lacked verticality and an office component. He stated
the development was not a walkable development. He stated the town center should be
functional and provide a use mix to sustain. Mr. Berry stated the development should
be transit friendly both internally and externally. He questioned residential above the
cinema.
Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission with concerns.
She stated the development did not appear to be pedestrian or bicyclist friendly. She
stated the areas east of University were bike and pedestrian friendly but the areas west
of University were not designed for walkers or bicyclist. She stated the signage
proposed seamed excessive. She stated the signage should be scaled to more closely
adhere to the DOD requirements.
Mr. Keller stated they had received from staff some bullet points related to the overall
site design. He stated some were general and some were more specific. He stated the
developers would work with staff to address the points, which were addressable before
going to the Board of Directors. Mr. Keller stated the developers were also willing to
meet with the design professional under contract with the City prior to going to the
Board of Directors.
Commissioner Rector stated the development was a two -phased project. He stated
with the exception of the hotel the entire development would be constructed in the first
phase. Mr. Keller stated the intent was to develop the entire project in the first phase
but staff had suggested a phasing plan to allow flexibility. Commissioner Rector stated
the City had adopted a Design Overlay District for the area and was concerned with
29
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
how the area redeveloped. He stated the City had contacted with a design professional
to provide advice on the specifics of the redevelopment. Mr. Keller stated he did not
feel the development would meet 100 percent of the Design Overlay District
requirements. He stated his firm was willing to meet with staff and the design
professional to review suggestions for change prior to the Board of Directors meeting.
Chairman Taylor requested staff provide the listing of bullet points for the record. Staff
stated the bullet points were only suggestions. Staff stated they were not engineers and
had not placed any of the suggestions on paper to see if they were feasible. Staff
stated the suggestions were a result of a brainstorming session held the previous
afternoon and was not meant to be an all inclusive list of suggestions. Staff read the
listing which included better compliance with the Design Overlay District, better
pedestrian connectivity internally and externally, breaking up the parking fields to break
up the visual and physical impact, relocate Anchor 3, Anchor 2 and the associated retail
to the north with a rear yard relationship to the retail/restaurant thus relocating the
parking to the south in place of the buildings, create a more defined entry from
St. Vincent similar to the entry from South University Avenue, expand the concept of the
town center design through the site rather than the typical power center concept, design
the buildings street exteriors with architectural elements to create the appearance of a
front facade and reduce the sign areas of the ground mounted signage to more closely
comply with the overlay district.
Staff noted CATA was satisfied with the proposed transit stop. Staff stated there were
concerns with an existing fence located south of St. Vincent's Circle and the ability to
relocated the southern stop to an area corresponding with the northern stop to allow
ease of access to the transit stops.
Commissioner Williams stated the site was an important piece of land within the City
and the development of the site would impact the area and the City for a number of
years. He stated he felt it important the redevelopment of the site be something that
would sustain and would be a benefit to the City for 10 to 20 years in the future.
Commissioner Pruitt stated she felt the project was a good project. She questioned
staff as to how they felt the parking could be broken. Staff stated the DOD required
parking fields with less than 50 spaces. Staff stated connectivity was an important
aspect of the development. Staff stated with the connectivity this would begin breaking
the parking lot areas and offer that visual break.
Chairman Taylor stated he too felt this an important project. He stated it was important
the development be a development the City would be proud of for a number of years.
Staff stated the item would require three separate votes. Staff stated the application
included the variance request for the Land Alteration Ordinance, the request for the
waiver of right of way dedication along South University Avenue and the zoning request.
The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the variance request from the Land
Alteration Ordinance to allow an increased wall height along McKinley Street. The
M
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 recusal (Commissioner
Yates and Commissioner Ferstl).
The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the waiver request of the right of way
dedication along South University Avenue. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent and 2 recusal (Commissioner Yates and Commissioner Ferstl).
The chair entertained a motion for approval of the requested PCD. The motion carried
by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 noes, 2 absent and 2 recusal (Commissioner Yates and
Commissioner Ferstl).
STAFF UPDATE:
The plan shows a mixed use development containing residential, office and retail uses.
The project is indicated with 753,400 square feet of space. The break down of uses is
as follows:
Retail/Restaurant 89,400 SF (Max. Rest. 40,000 SF)
Anchor 162,600 SF
Cinema 36,000 SF
Residential: 313,900 SF (Max. including Hotel)
900 SF Avg. 330 Units
Office 31,500 SF
Office Option 120,000 SF
Total:
753,400 SF
The plan indicates two parking structures; utilization of the existing structure and the
construction of a second parking structure near the southeastern portion of the site.
The total parking proposed for the development is 1,802 spaces. Based on parking
standards established by the Overlay for a shopping center development, a maximum of
2,906 and a minimum of 1,453 parking spaces are allowed.
The total building lot coverage proposed is 333,400 square feet or 27.0 percent and the
total parking coverage is 387,400 square feet or 31.3 percent, including the parking
structures. The total open space proposed is 43,400 square feet. As indicated in the
previous write-up, a total of 14,913 square feet of common use area is required.
The existing parking structure contains 679 spaces and the new parking structure is
proposed to contain up to 360 spaces. There are six lots containing varied numbers of
surface parking spaces. The largest surface parking area is the parking area in front of
Anchor 1 which contains 384 spaces and the next is Lot B, the Town Center portion of
the development which contains a total of 276 surface parking spaces. The remaining
lots contain 17 spaces, 39 spaces and 47 spaces. One of the proposed lots does not
contain any surface parking. The parking fields have been broken to limit the visual and
31
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
physical impact. Even though located on the same lot, the two parking fields south of
Retail/Restaurant Buildings E and F each contain 70 spaces. This parking area has
been reduced by 1/3 from the previous site plan. The remainder of the parking fields
appear to contain less than the 50 spaces recommended by the DOD.
Along the project edge at the southeastern corner of the site, a Retail/Residential
structure with a maximum of four stories has been located. A total of 13,700 square
feet of ground level retail and 33 residential units are proposed topped with three
additional levels each containing 51 residential units for a total of 168 residential units.
This portion of the site plan also includes the new parking structure. The structure is
proposed with a maximum of four levels with up to 360 spaces. The site plan includes a
courtyard and private open space to serve the residential units. The placement of the
structure at this location recognizes the importance of this intersection to both the area
and the development.
A 25 -foot landscape strip located between the right of way and the building along
St. Vincent's Circle and a landscape strip ranging from 12 feet to 25 feet along South
University Avenue have been indicated. The Overlay allows for a zero building setback
and not more than 20 feet excepting in those cases where grade changes make such
setbacks impractical. The buildings are being placed consistent with the Overlay
excepting the areas where grades do not allow a zero setback.
The Retail/Restaurant, Buildings A - F and Anchor 4, are located south of the existing
parking structure. Buildings A — F are indicated with a maximum of two stories. The
second story above Buildings E and F is indicated as "flex space" which could function
as live and/or office workspace. Anchor 4, also located in this area, is indicated with
15,500 square feet of ground floor retail space and up to seven (7) levels and 120,000
square feet of office space.
The northern building on McKinley Street is indicated as a residential or hotel structure.
A note on the site plan states, if residential, the structure will be a maximum of four
stories containing 162 units or if developed as a limited service hotel, there will be a up
to seven levels and 127 rooms.
The four entrances to the development are accented with contrasting paving. The
entrances are further accented with lighting, landscaping and pedestrian walkways.
Development center signage is proposed at three of the entrances, on South University
Avenue, on St. Vincent's Circle, on McKinley Street and at the intersection of
St. Vincent's Circle and South University Avenue. Development center signage is
proposed as a monument style sign with a maximum height of 35 -feet and width of
20 -feet. The total sign face is proposed not to exceed 400 square feet in area. The
Overlay states signage integrated into free standing vertical structures whose design
theme and materials are directly related to the primary development may submit for
approval under the PZD process the proposed signage plan. No single elevation or
face of such a structure shall be more than 400 square feet. Although the sign
structures are proposed in excess of the 400 square feet, the sign faces are limited to a
maximum of 400 square feet. The structures are proposed as an architectural element
32
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
of the center and will be constructed of materials that are directly related to the
development. The secondary entrance from South University Avenue will contain a
single monument style sign not to exceed six feet in height and 72 square feet in area.
This sign complies with the Overlay standards.
The site plan indicates pedestrian connectivity internally and externally. Connections
have been made between the Town Center portion of the development and the
southern anchors. Inviting pedestrian access has been provided from the entrance
drives into the site. The two surface parking lots located south of the Retail/Restaurant
Building E and F have been reduced, limiting the rows of parking to nine spaces and
pedestrian tables have been located at the ends of these lots to facilitate foot traffic
throughout the site. The main anchor has provided a pedestrian table within the center
of the lot to allow a safe passage for both patrons and persons accessing the southern
anchors from the northern retail and residential buildings. All other buildings within the
development are connected via pedestrian tables and 10 -foot wide pedestrian walkways
similar to standards identified in the Overlay.
The development is proposed to contain a mixture of residential, office and commercial
space as identified in the ULI Study and the Statement of Expectations and the
development creates a true 24-7 environment. The development is proposed to contain
up to 151,500 square feet or 20 percent of the total square footage as office space.
Buildings E and F have been indicated with residential/office atop retail identified as
"flex space" for a possible live work environment. With the addition of the
residential/retail component at the St. Vincent's Circle/South University Avenue
intersection, the overall Town Center concept has been expanded through out the site.
By removing Anchor 3, the parking fields located in front of Retail F, K and Anchor 2
have been reduced by 1/3 from the previous submittal thus limiting their visual impact.
The pedestrian movement, both internally and externally, has been designed to allow
easy access into and through the site for residents and patrons of the shopping center.
Although signage is proposed in excess of the typical Overlay standard, staff is
supportive of the design concept. The signage will be an architectural feature
integrating materials directly related to other construction materials used in the center.
The large anchor has not been designed to create the appearance of a front facade on
all the abutting roadways. The developers have indicated this is not technically feasible.
This anchor has a building design that does not lend itself to creating additional
entrances or false entrances. The remainder of the street frontage along St. Vincent's
Circle and McKinley Street will be developed with design criteria, which allows for
enhanced features to limit the visual impact of the structures on the street sides. Staff
feels the developers have done a good job in trying the meet the spirit of the Mid -Town
Design Overlay District and the Statement of Design and Programming Expectations.
Staff is in full support of the current site plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 19, 2008)
Mr. Chuck Keller was present representing the application. There were persons present
with concerns. Staff stated at the direction of the Commission at its May 22, 2008,
33
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
public hearing the applicant had met with City staff and others concerning changes to
the site plan related to specific issues raised at the Commission meeting and by staff.
Staff stated modifications had been made to the site plan and staff felt it was important
to brining the current site plan to the Commission for review prior to the item being
reviewed by the Board of Directors.
Staff stated the plan now indicated a true mixed use development containing residential,
commercial and now an office component. Staff stated the development was indicated
753,400 square feet of residential, office and commercial space with up to
150,000 square feet of office space. Staff stated a few of the changes to the site plan
included the emphasis of the southeastern project edge with the addition of a four-story
residential building. Staff stated a parking structure had been included in this area to
serve the residential use. Staff stated with the addition of the residential building at this
intersection the Town Center concept had been integrated through out the site. Staff
stated pedestrian accesses and connectivity both internally and externally had been
addressed. Staff stated the entrances to the development had been enhanced and the
design concept of the Town Center had been integrated into these areas as well. Staff
noted the parking fields had been broken and the parking fields located north of Anchor
2 had been reduced by as much as 1/3.
Staff stated the presentation was only a brief summary of the current plan and Mr. Keller
would provide the Commission additional details of the changes.
Staff stated although the site plan did not fully comply with the Mid -town DOD they felt
the developers had done a good job in trying to meet the spirit of the Mid -town District
and the statement of Design Programming Expectations. Staff stated they were in full
support of the project.
Mr. Chuck Keller of Park Avenue Properties addressed the Commission. He stated at
the direction of the Commission the developers did meet with City staff, Craig Berry and
the City's consultant to discuss options for change to the site plan. He stated Anchor 3
had been removed for the site, which was a significant change. He stated limits were
placed on the developability of the southeast corner due to a large drainage easement
which started somewhere near Park Plaza Mall and emptied somewhere south of the
site. He stated the structure was not located within an easement but the relocation of
the drainage structure was not feasible. He stated all plans had been developed around
the structure and the limits of not being able to build on top of the drainage structure.
Mr. Keller stated the new plan indicated the placement of a four story residential
building on the southeast corner of the site. He stated along with the residential, a
parking deck with up to four stories was proposed and ground level retail. Mr. Keller
stated the drainage structure would serve as the driveway to the parking deck. He
stated on the second level the building would extend over the drainage structure. He
stated with the placement of the parking structure exclusive to the residential should a
condo situation arise in the future the sale of the units would be an easier transition.
34
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
Mr. Keller stated connectivity was a concern raised by staff and the Commission. He
stated the current plan indicated sidewalk connections along St. Vincent's Circle and
McKinley Street to allow access into the site. He stated the walks into the development
were a minimum of 10 -feet wide and the area would be landscaped and lighting would
be added to enhance these areas. Mr. Keller stated additional pedestrian accesses had
been included through out the site to allow patrons safe access through the site.
Mr. Keller stated the northern buildings, the Town Center buildings, had been
redesigned removing the residential to the southeastern edge of the project. He stated
the Town Center buildings were now proposed as one to two story buildings. He stated
two additional screens had been added to the theater. He stated the second level
above the southern building was proposed as loft space with up to 31,000 square feet of
office space. He stated the intent was to allow this space as flex space or live/work
space where if a person desired to live on site and office on site this could be
achievable. He stated in addition Anchor 4 was indicated with ground level retail and up
to seven levels and 120,000 square feet of office space.
Mr. Keller provided the Commission with three-dimensional views of the site. He stated
based on a one-dimensional drawing it was difficult to visualize the site. He stated the
current plan would be developed with verticality. He stated the parking fields had been
reduced and with the placement of landscaping within the parking fields the visual
impacts would also be lessened. Mr. Keller stated the intent was only to create one
Town Center. He stated with the addition of elements contained within the Town Center
the development was better tied together.
Mr. Keller stated he could not fully comply with the Mid -town Overlay. He stated he
would still need variances to allow the development of Park Avenue.
Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission. She stated the
site plan was much better. She stated the landscaping in the parking lots, the office
component, the retail and residential combined were all good changes but she stated
the plan was not perfect. She stated the pedestrian movement was better with the
exception of the southern entrance from St. Vincent's Circle. She stated in this area,
where most would enter they would walk past loading docks before entering the
development. She stated bicycle racks had been promised by the developer but bicycle
movement did not appear to be addressed within the development. She requested the
developer provide graphics at the entrance to the development indicating the location of
bicycle routes and bicycle racks to accommodate cyclist accessing the site.
Ms. Bell stated the bigger problem was the four corners and the lack of circulation
between the sites. She stated it was important to begin discussion with all four corners
to create a shuttle service to access these four properties and allow residents of Park
Avenue and customers to access other shopping areas without traveling in their
automobile.
Ms. Bell stated the sign was not what the League was expecting. She stated it was
difficult to find Park Avenue on the sign. She stated based on the proposed signage the
35
FILE NQ.: Z -4953-B (Cont.
development was the Target Shopping center. She requested the developers place the
name of the center on top of the sign.
Mr. Jim Bell addressed the Commission. He stated the Briarwood Neighborhood
Association was in favor of the mixed use center proposed. He stated if the center was
viable it would only enhance the area and the neighborhood. He stated the signage
was a concern. He stated based on the sign proposed the first thing you saw as a big
Target's bulls eye. He requested the developer design the sign to indicated the name
of the center being the most prominent. He stated the landscaping was more friendly
and the entrances were well defined. He requested the landscaping be placed and able
to grow to maturity. He requested the developers not install crape myrtles which were
trimmed every year.
Commissioner Nunnley questioned the developer as to why he could not meet the
overlay requirements. Mr. Keller stated he was not sure of all the items not being met
but one item was the entrances on all street sides. He stated the facades would be
broken to break the visual massing of the structure but the retailers did not lend
themselves to multiple entrances. He stated they were not designed to operate multiple
entrances and from a loss prevention standpoint multiple entrances were difficult to
manage. Mr. Keller stated setbacks was another area of non-compliance. He stated
there were areas of the site that did not lend themselves to a zero setback or to the
maximum 20 foot setback due to grades.
Commissioner Nunnley questioned Mr. Craig Berry as to his thoughts on the plan.
Mr. Berry stated he did meet with the developers in Dallas along with City staff and the
City's consultant and modifications had been made based on the meeting. He stated
the Mid Town Advisory Board had not met so he could not speak on behalf of the Board
members as to their thoughts of the plan. He stated the plan was an improvement.
Commissioner Nunnley stated he felt the plan a better plan. He stated he wanted to
applaud the developers for their efforts and their willingness to work with interested
parties on the site plan and to develop a better plan than previously presented.
Commissioner Pruitt stated she to felt the plan a better plan. She stated the developer
had do a good job in working with all concerned to address issues previously raised.
Chairman Taylor stated he felt the plan an improvement. He stated he had previously
voted against the plan but with the changes he was in support the plan. He stated the
plan was not 100 percent but he felt the plan much better than the plan the Commission
reviewed on May 22, 2008.
There was no further discussion of the item
36
May 22, 2008
TEM NO.: G
NAME: Park Avenue Long -form PCD
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of St. Vincent Circle and University
Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Strode Property Company
5950 Berkshire Lane #1600
Dallas, TX 75225
FNr1INFFR-
Lawrence A. Cates and Associates, LLP
14800 Quorum Drive, Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75254
PI ANNFR-
Good Fulton and Farrel
2808 Fairmount, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75201
AREA: 28.39 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
ALLOWED USES: General Commercial Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE
. NEW STREET: 0 LF
Mixed Use Development — Residential, Retail
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow an increased wall height
along McKinley Street.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The site of the former University Mall is 28.39 acres of land. Strode Property
Company, the applicant, purchased the property in September of 2007, and
began demolition of the deteriorating facility in November 2007. During the
demolition phase, the structure was taken down to 2 feet below the current
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
finished floor elevation and the hazardous materials were removed under the
supervision of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.
The plans for the new development, named Park Avenue, involve a mixed-use
concept incorporating retail, restaurant, residential and theatre. The design
scheme uses building materials and site scapes that invite customers, residents
and employees to change their life patterns and spend more time in one place,
Park Avenue. Integrating retail with multi -family and designing open public
spaces into the site plan gives the development a much desired "sense of place".
Specifically, the plan includes 748,250 square feet of total building area utilizing
the existing two story parking structure as well as an underground parking
garage that will sit under one of the retail/multi-family building pods. The
remainder of the site will be surface parked using a formula that reduces the
standard parking ratios by complimentary uses. The large anchors expected to
be involved demand a parking field in front of their stores for their customers.
With the current plan of 748,250 square feet, the components break down as
follows:
Project Data:
Retail/Restaurant
Anchor
79,650 square feet
212,600 square feet
Cinema 27,000 square feet
Residential or Residential and Hotel 429,000 square feet
900 SF Avg. 476 Units Max — Residential; 127 room hotel
Total Square Footage
Parking Provided:
Surface Spaces/Lot A
Surface Spaces/Lot B
Surface Spaces/Lot C
Surface Spaces/Lot D
Surface Spaces/Lot E
Surface Spaces/Lot F
Existing Parking Structure
Underground Garage
Total Spaces
Building Lot Coverage
Parking Lot Coverage
K
748,250 square feet
384 spaces
391 spaces
6 spaces
38 spaces
43 spaces
47 spaces
682 spaces
207 spaces
1,798 spaces
336,250 Sq. Ft. 25.8%
319,600 Sq. Ft. 25.8%
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
The total number of spaces for the development is a ratio of 2.4 per 1,000 square
feet of floor area or 1,798 total parking spaces. The site will be subdivided into
separate parcels to allow for future transfer of property to potential tenants.
Park Avenue is designed to meet the purpose and intent of the Midtown Overlay
District by creating the ability to work, live, shop and recreate in one location.
This will achieved by using the ground floor of key building pods for retail space
similar to the description in Section 36.388 of the Midtown Overlay District.
Multiple free standing single user retail buildings are proposed within the site
plan.
Common elements, either colors or materials, to achieve architectural harmony
throughout the development are proposed. The building fagades are proposed
constructed using a predominance of masonry, stone, or exterior insulation finish
system and the retail ground floor will utilize a glass store front system. To
address long or tall building elevations, special care will be taken to break up the
mass with articulations of color and/or material change.
The signage includes multi -tenant and single tenant monument type structures at
all entrances. Directional or "way finding" signs will direct visitors across the
project and include tenant logos. Tenant signage is strictly governed by the
owner to insure a cohesive, controlled and unique "branding" of the development.
Tenant signage on some buildings may be allowed on three sides. Blade,
awning, window and seasonal banners will be utilized by the development.
The residential units of Pak Avenue will be for rent and the residents will utilize
the parking structures mentioned previously to serve their parking needs. This
component will include private areas for fitness, sunbathing or congregating and
there will be balconies to encourage the residents to embrace the open spaces
and promote the "sense of place". Parking lot lighting will be pole mounted over
a concrete base at levels necessary to ensure residents and customer safety at
the project.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is the former University Mall site which is currently being demolished.
The developers have retained the parking deck structure. The area is a mix of
office, commercial and institutional uses. St. Vincent's Hospital is located to the
east of the site, across South University Avenue, and is currently undergoing an
expansion. Doctors Office building and St. Vincent's Doctors Hospital is located
to the South of the site, across St. Vincent Circle. To the west of the site is
residential housing, both single-family and multi -family homes. North of the site
are office and commercial uses including a multi -story office building located at
the southwest intersection of West Markham and South University Avenue. A
vacant branch bank building located at the property's northeast corner, a
3
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
restaurant, a high rise residential tower and a funeral home are all located to the
north of this site fronting West Markham Street.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received an informational phone call from an area
resident. The Briarwood Neighborhood Association, all property owners located
within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within
300 -feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies
that McKinley Street for the frontage of this property must meet commercial
street standards. Dedicate that portion of right-of-way on McKinley Street
which is private. Additional right-of-way may be required to be dedicated if
the eastern half of the right-of-way is not 30 feet from centerline.
2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
St. Vincent Circle and McKinley Street.
3. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
University Avenue and St. Vincent Circle.
4. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to western
portion of St. Vincent Circle with the planned development. The new curb
line should match the curb line on the eastern portion of St. Vincent Circle.
5. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan to be
installed along University Avenue, St. Vincent Circle and McKinley Street.
6. University Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
7. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The width of driveway must
not exceed 36 feet. The minimum driveway spacing on a principal arterial
street (University Avenue) is 300 feet from another driveway or intersection
and 150 feet from property line. The proposed driveways on University
Avenue do not meet the spacing requirement.
8. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The driveway spacing on a
commercial street (St. Vincent Circle) is at least 250 feet from another
driveway or intersection and at least 150 feet from the property line. The
0
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
proposed driveways on St. Vincent Circle do not meet the spacing
requirement.
9. Due to the many changes made to the original site plan including the
changes to the types and amount of uses on the site, the submitted traffic
study dated February 18, 2008, is no longer applicable. Please resubmit an
updated Traffic Study addressing total trip generation, trip distribution, traffic
signal operation/coordination, levels of service and traffic circulation. At the
time the updated traffic study is submitted, additional comments maybe
made relating to traffic.
10. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
11. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way
from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner).
12. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site if the
amount of cut and fill is equal to or greater than 1000 cubic yards or if
vertical cuts and fills are greater than 10 feet. Site grading, and drainage
plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of
construction.
13. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
14. Storm water detention will not apply to the proposed development due to the
amount of proposed impervious surface is comparable to the amount of
existing impervious surface.
15. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
16. Coordinate design of traffic signal upgrade with proposed street
improvements. Plans to be forwarded to Traffic Engineering for approval.
17. Smaller scaled plans are desired to be submitted for all future reviews.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center -Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
5
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.
F
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding the size and location of the water meter(s). On site fire
protection and additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock
Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the
hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for
installation of the hydrant(s). This development will have minor impact on the
existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to
provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on a major connecting point between five CATA
routes. In order to prevent major tie-ups along St. Vincent Circle a bus pullout
lane of at least 140 -feet must be available along westbound St. Vincent Circle
between South University Avenue and McKinley Street. The current curb lane
along the south side of St. Vincent Circle for eastbound buses must also be
maintained. The final street configuration for St. Vincent Circle should allow for a
minimum of two lanes in each direction. One of the two lanes will be used for
bus loading; the other lane will be used for through traffic.
ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning_ Division: This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant
has applied for a Planned Commercial Development to allow development of a
mixed use development containing commercial, office, cinema, hotel, and
residential.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: South University is shown as a Principal Arterial. The
primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect
major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and
exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on
South University Avenue since it is a Principal Arterial. St. Vincent Circle and
McKinley Street are both shown as Local Streets. The primary function of a
Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are
abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes
are considered as "Commercial Streets". These streets have a design standard
the same as a Collector. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way
and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
A
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in this immediate area.
Neighborhood Action Pian: This area is covered by the Briarwood Neighborhood
Plan, but the plan does not address this issue.
Parks and Recreation: Encourage pedestrian/bicycle links to War Memorial
Park. Contact the Parks and Recreation Department for additional information.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City's landscape, buffer ordinance and the
Midtown Design Overlay District requirements unless variances are approved.
2. Additional street trees are recommended on the site's perimeters and
vehicular access areas.
3. Special attention should be given to this highly pedestrian development for
open shared space opportunities and additional green space(s).
4. This site will be reviewed as an overall development plan; therefore, the site's
entirety will need to be automatically irrigated and have a landscape plan with
the stamp of a licensed Landscape Architect.
5. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of eight percent (8%) of the
paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 '/2 feet in width
and 300 square feet in area. The proposed plan does not currently reflect this
minimum requirement.
6. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an
approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT. (March 6, 2008)
Mr. Chuck Keller was present representing the application. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development stating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated the first set of comments
were related to the Midtown Design Overlay District and were being provided for
the developer to address for compliance or non-compliance. Staff stated the
areas the developer was not complying with would require a notation in the
write-up and approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors. Staff
stated the Planning Staff comments were to address additional information
needed by staff for inclusion in the write-up and recommendation. Staff noted
the site plan as proposed did not provide connectivity through the site, the
parking lots were not providing pedestrian tables and staff questioned the intent
of building signage. Staff stated dumpster facilities would require screening and
7
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
site lighting was not be directed downward and into the site. Staff noted the DOD
addressed lighting, establishing minimum and maximum foot candles.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the Master Street Plan
and the Boundary Street ordinances would require dedications and street
construction to the abutting streets. Staff also stated any broken curb, gutter or
sidewalk damaged in the right of way would require replacing prior to occupancy.
Staff stated a grading permit would be required and a storm water permit would
be required prior to the start of construction.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated eight percent of the
vehicular use area would require landscaping in landscape islands at least
300 square feet in area. Staff stated a landscape plan would be required prior to
the issuance of a building permit. Staff also stated the site would require
automatic irrigation to water landscaped areas. Staff noted the site would require
compliance with the Midtown Design Overlay District and the City's landscape
and buffer ordinances unless variations were approved.
Staff noted comments received from CATA. Staff stated CATA desired a bus
pull -off along the south side of the site. Staff also noted comments from the
various other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant
contact them directly for additional information. There was no further discussion
of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and cover letter to staff addressing
most of the issues raised at the March 5, 2008, Subdivision Committee meeting.
The revisions include the proposed signage plan, pedestrian connectivity and a
note indicating site lighting at the property line will be zero.
The following is a listing of the specific requirements of the Midtown Overlay
District and the applicant's proposal for meeting the typical requirements. For
any new development, redevelopment exceeding 50 percent or expansion of an
existing development by more than 50 percent a PZD application is required.
Midtown Overlay District I Applicant's Proposal
A planned zoning district process shall
be required for a new development,
redevelopment exceeding 50 percent of
0
The development is proposed as new
construction therefore a rezoning from
C-3, General Commercial District to
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.
the structure's current replacement
value based on its configuration at the
time of the DOD's adoption, and for
expansion of existing developments
exceeding 50 percent of the structure's
current square footage at the time of
the DOD's adoption. Routine repairs,
maintenance and interior alterations to
accommodate existing, expanding or
new tenants within the existing building
envelope shall not require compliance
with Chapter 36, Article 10 (Midtown
Design Overlay District). The proposed
planned zoning development shall be
reviewed to realize a development plan
that is consistent with the purpose and
intent of the Midtown Design Overlay
District.
For a new development or structure of
over 100,000 square feet (excluding
structured parking), a mix of uses must
be provided. This mix may occur either
under the same roof or in adjacent
structures as part of a common
development. In order to be considered
a mix, the new development must
either:
Devote the majority of its leasable
ground floor space to a secondary use
i.e. retail in a multi -story office building;
or
Devote ten percent of the gross
leasable area of a single building to the
secondary use i.e. residential on the
upper levels of a multi -story office, retail
D
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
PCD is required.
The proposal is for a mixed-use
development containing retail and
residential; both in separate buildings
or as mixed uses within multi -story
buildings.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
or institutional building; or
Devote fifteen percent of the gross
leasable area to a secondary use in a
separate building constructed and
occupied at the same time as the
primary structure i.e. a restaurant on a
pad adjacent to an office building.
The Midtown Design Overlay District
requires developments in excess of
200,000 square feet to contain a
residential component. The residential
may be in the same structure or a
separate structure, as long as the
separate structure is part of the overall
development and the overall
development is built simultaneously.
For any development constructed in
phases, a portion of the secondary
uses shall be included in the initial
phases.
Facade treatment — for new
construction at least 60 percent of the
ground floor level facing internal
pedestrian public circulation areas or
streets shall be glass -windows, entry
features or displays.
The primary facade of a building shall
be oriented parallel with the street, or to
the principal vehicular or pedestrian
routes of travel whether public or
private.
Buildings shall maintain a distinction
between upper and lower levels; an
elevation greater than 18 feet in height
shall contain an architectural treatment,
which visually divides the structure into
stories.
W]
Park Avenue will contain the required
residential component. However, the
residential or hotel at the northwest
corner of the property (separate
structure) may be constructed in a
separate phase as shown on the site
plan (phasing).
Some of the buildings will not contain a
minimum of 60 percent of the ground
floor as glass -windows, entry features
or displays.
The primary fagade of the building will
be oriented parallel to the private
vehicular routes of travel within the
development.
Architectural treatments are indicated
on the multi -story buildings to visually
divide the structure into stories. The
proposed elevations for the major
anchor indicate an attempt to visually
break up the height of the structure
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.
Wall projections or recesses a minimum
of three feet deep and a minimum of 20
continuous feet not to extend over 20
percent of the facade shall be required.
Arches, display windows, entry areas or
awnings shall exist along at least 60
percent of the fagade.
Entryway — Primary entrances shall be
oriented to the street or to the principal
vehicular or pedestrian routes of travel
within a development.
Buildings shall have clearly defined and
visible customer entrances featuring
elements such as overhangs, arcades,
arches, canopies, peaked roof forms,
display windows.
All sides of buildings that face abutting
public or private rights of way, except
alleys, shall feature at least one
customer entrance.
Elevations - No elevation facing an
arterial or greater street shall be
primarily used as a service entry or
otherwise be treated as the rear of the
structures.
New construction wider than 100 linear
feet shall be visually massed so as to
break the structure visually.
Rooflines shall be varied with changes
in height every 100 liner feet in building
length. Parapets, mansard roofs, gable
roofs, high roofs, shall be used to
11
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
through the use of different colors and
materials.
Projections will be included along the
facades to break the massing of the
structure. Some of the buildings will
not contain arches, display windows,
entry areas or awnings along at least
60 percent of the fagade.
The primary entrances will be oriented
to the vehicular or pedestrian routes
within the development.
The buildings will contain clearly
defined and visible customer entrances
featuring elements such as overhangs,
arcades, arches, canopies, peaked
roof forms, and display windows.
The buildings will not contain customer
entrances on all abutting streets.
The elevations abutting South
University Avenue will be designed as
four (4) sided buildings and will not be
used as a service entry or treated as
the rear of the buildings.
Based on the information provided to
staff, it appears the buildings will be
constructed to visually break the mass
of the structure through the use of
various materials and colors.
The site plan appears to comply with
this typical standard. There may be
exceptions on Anchors 1 and 3 based
on the information provided to staff.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
conceal flat roofs and roof top
equipment.
Exterior building materials and colors
shall be aesthetically pleasing and
compatible with materials and colors
used in neighboring developments.
Predominant exterior building materials
The development will be constructed
shall be of high quality materials; such
with painted concrete tilt wall, masonry
as but not limited to: brick, wood, store,
veneer, stone veneer or CMU block,
tinted, stucco, EIFS (Exterior Insulation
Glass storefronts, Metal panels,
Finish System) concreted masonry
Painted metal, Plaster or EIFS,
units. Fagade colors — shall be low
Perforated metal screens, Composite
reflectant, subtle, neutral or earth tone
wood panels.
with trim and accents brighter colors.
Predominant exterior building materials
The development will utilize tilt -up
shall not be smooth -faced concrete
concrete panels. The panels will be
block, tilt -up concrete panels or
scored for visual aesthetics.
prefabricated steel panels.
Projections (all requirements for a
Not applicable.
franchise remain in place). Objects
shall not project from the building
facade over the public right of way
except for awnings, signs, and
balconies.
Awnings shall not project more than five
Not applicable.
(5) feet from the building facade and
have a minimum clearance of nine (9)
feet above pedestrian areas and
thirteen (13) feet above vehicular areas.
Balconies over the public right-of-way
Not applicable.
shall have a minimum clearance of nine
(9) feet above the sidewalk. One (1)
inch of projection is permitted for each
additional inch of clearance above eight
(8) feet, provided that no such
projection shall exceed a distance of
four (4) feet. Balconies shall not be
supported with posts extending to the
sidewalk. Mounting heights for balcony
12
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
brackets shall conform to minimum
clearance standards.
Building height — No building hereafter
erected or structural altered shall
exceed a height of 60 feet, except as
provided below. Structures may have a
greater height as follows, and these
bonuses may be cumulative:
Any structure that is certified by CATA
as provide a portion of the structure for
mass transit is entitled to add 15 -feet.
Structures with a mix of uses with the
street -level primarily devoted to retail
uses and at lease 50 percent of these
uses having direct access to the street,
is entitled to add 25 feet to the
structure; alternately a development
with an integrated parking facility
substantially located within the footprint
of the primary structure, is entitled to
add 25 feet to the structure.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, any
structure located north of West
Markham Street and east of University
shall be limited to a height of 35 feet.
The maximum building height will be
105 feet.
The buildings along the "main street"
driveway are a maximum of 5 -stories
in height. The buildings contain
ground floor retail and 4 stories of
residential. The northern buildings
incorporate access to the existing
parking deck. The southern buildings
are located over the underground
parking garage.
The proposed building height of 105
feet is less than the 110 allowed with
the bonuses if consideration is given
for use of the existing parking deck
and underground garage.
Building setbacks from property lines
The property fronts onto S. University
and street rights of way shall be:
Avenue. It appears 2 of the 3 buildings
along the street are set in excess of
Front yard setbacks may be zero but
the 20 -foot typical requirement.
will not be more than 20 -feet excepting
in those cases where grade changes
make such setbacks impractical.
Side yard setbacks may be zero except
There is not residential abutting the
where adjacent to lots containing
development.
single-family detached structures. In
this case the side yard setback shall be
a setback of not less than four (4) feet.
13
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.:
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
Rear yard setback may be zero, except There is not residential abutting the
where adjacent to lots containing development.
single-family detached structures. In
this case the rear yard setback shall
have a setback of not less than 25 -feet.
Driveways, Sidewalks and Alleys —
The development is requesting the
Driveways and internal circulation
allowance of 15 -foot drive lanes.
streets must have lanes at least ten feet
in width, but not more than 12 feet
excepting that width needed for bike
lanes or special pedestrian
Some of the walks are indicated less
accommodations.
than ten (10) feet.
Intersections of internal drives or
The development appears to be
streets will be minimally controlled by
complying.
stop signs, and will feature special
strategic locations to provide
crossway paving or treated surfaces.
Access driveways running parallel with
The drives are located in excess of
the street shall not create a four-way
125 -feet from the street intersections.
intersection within 125 feet of the
ultimate curb line of the public street.
No more than one curb cut per block
There are 2 driveways on each street
face shall be permitted. Driveways and
perimeter. The property has more
parking lot entrances -exit shall be
than 2 blocks of frontage on each
combined and where appropriate
street.
located in alleys.
Sidewalks and Pedestrian walkways —
Some of the drives do not have
All driveways and internal streets shall
sidewalks located along both sides.
have minimum five foot sidewalks on
both sides located away from the back
of curb.
All sidewalks fronting buildings with
Some of the walks are indicated less
ground floor retail shall be at least 10
than ten (10) feet.
feet in width.
Protected pedestrian walkways shall be
Crosswalks shall be incorporated at
provided through parking lots.
strategic locations to provide
14
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.
All developments shall include as part
of their site plan pedestrian linkages
through parking areas and to adjacent
buildings or developments.
Alleys — shall not be more than 20 -feet
wide unless needed for emergency
access. Where an alley runs along a
property line, it shall be screened from
the adjacent property by a permanent
wall of high quality materials compatible
with neighboring buildings.
All new utilities for developments within
the District shall be buried. All new
developments shall underground all
utilities onsite or within adjacent public
right of way wherever determined by
the utility agency to be feasible.
Trash enclosures shall be located in
alleys wherever available or in common
service areas for multiple
developments.
In all areas, service and waste removal
areas shall be screened and located
away from public outdoor spaces and
pedestrian. Dumpster screening shall
comply with Section 36-523.
ILE NO.: Z -4953-B
pedestrian linkages to structures within
the development.
Not applicable. There are no alleys
located within the development.
All new utilities for the proposed
development will be buried where
technically feasible.
Waste removal areas shall be
screened and located away from public
outdoor spaces and pedestrians when
physically possible.
Parking facilities — wherever feasible, The applicant is utilizing an existing
multilevel parking structures shall be parking structure and is proposing to
encouraged. Surface parking shall be construct an underground parking
limited to the side and rear of garage.
structures, unless grouped in quantities
of 50 spaces or less separated by a A portion of the parking fields contain
landscaping strip no less than the more than 50 spaces.
15
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
perimeter landscape strip as required
for the property by Chapter 15 of the
code or a structure from other vehicular
areas and having no more than one
vehicular connection to another surface
parking area. Surface parking areas
should be broken up or distributed
around large structures so as to shorten
the distance to other buildings and
public sidewalks. For corner lots,
parking is allowed along the side street
frontage.
Parking requirements within the District
The maximum parking allowed for the
shall be 50 percent of that required by
development is 3,325 spaces. The
Article VII of Chapter 36. The
minimum parking allowed is 1,662
maximum allowed parking shall be the
spaces. The development is proposed
minimum standard established in Article
to contain 1,798 spaces.
VII of Chapter 36.
Shared parking. As an alternative to
Not applicable.
subsection (f)(2) above, mixed-use
developments may utilize the shared
parking methodologies developed by
the Urban Land Institute and published
in Shared Parking (Second Edition,
2005) by Mary S. Smith, et al. A project
may elect this means of determining the
total parking requirement by submitting
a parking demand analysis prepared by
a qualified parking or traffic consultant,
a licensed architect, city planner, or
urban planner or civil engineer.
On -street parking. On -street parking on
Not applicable.
internal streets or circulation routes
shall be allowed and may count
towards the parking requirement. On -
street parking is permitted either
parallel, in areas in front of, or adjacent
to, retail or commercial entries. Angled
street (drive) parking shall not be
permitted on streets (drives) that
16
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.- G (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
provide the development majority
access. Such parking may count
towards the overall project parking
requirements. No on -street parking
shall be allowed on University Avenue
or Markham Street.
No parking shall be allowed in the front
Some of the parking will be located
yard setback area.
within the front yard setback of South
University Avenue.
Parking garage design — Parking
The development is utilizing an
facilities should be designed consistent
existing parking structure (682
with the overall project design. Where
spaces). The structure will be
possible, other uses, residential or
screened from view in most locations.
commercial should be used to wrap or
An underground parking garage is also
otherwise block the view of a parking
being constructed (207 spaces).
garage.
Signage — Signage shall comply with
Article X except as follows — No off-site
advertising signs are permitted. No
pole mounted signs are permitted.
Monument signs are to identify the
development and be limited to 72
square feet in area and 6 feet in height
for developments greater than one
acre. Signage integrated into
free-standing vertical structures whose
design theme and materials are directly
related to the primary development may
be submitted for approval under the
PZD process if located along University
southerly of Lee. No single elevation or
face of such a structure shall be more
than 400 square feet.
No off-site signage is proposed. The
development is proposing signage
larger than typically allowed.
Four major tenant identification signs
are proposed with a height of 36 feet
and a sign area of 430 square feet.
The total area of the sign structures is
720 square feet (36'X 20').
No street buffer or landscaping is Landscaping will be placed along
required along streets classified less South University Avenue where the
than an arterial. When the structure is building is not placed at the zero
not built to the property line, setback and where conflicts do not
landscaping is required in the area exist.
17
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.
between the building and property line
up to that required in Chapter 15 of the
Code.
Land use buffers shall only be provided
where single-family and duplex use or
zoning is the abutting use. In those
cases where a land use buffer is
required, buffers shall be the same as
those for multi -family uses in Section
36-522(b)(1). In areas where terrain
variation is great or other features result
in the loss of privacy, alternative
designs and massing shall be
considered.
Common use areas and plazas shall be
a minimum of 300 square feet for
30,000 square foot structures. For
each additional 5,000 square feet or
portion thereof, a minimum of an
additional 50 square feet of plaza area
is required.
Surface parking lots shall meet all
current landscape requirements.
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
Not applicable.
The site plan indicates the placement
of 42,800 square feet of open space.
The surface lots will meet the
requirements of Chapter 15.
Street trees shall be a minimum of
Street trees will meet this requirement
3 -inch caliper and shall be 2 feet off the
as well as 4' planter strip, where
back of curb, 30 feet on center. The
possible. Conflicts could be
canopy shall be maintained with an
encountered along portions of
8 foot clearance. A four foot planter
University and St. Vincent's where
strip shall be maintained.
existing structures or utilities exist.
Common use areas and plazas shall be
Common areas will be maintained by a
maintained by a common authority.
common authority by private document
Attempts shall be made to maintain
such as an "Operating and Easement
vegetation, trees, bushes, in
Agreement" between the parties within
undisturbed conditions to serve the
the project.
aesthetic, recreational and ecological
needs of the district. Trees planted in
these areas shall be a minimum of two
inches in caliper and ten feet in height.
`E:
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.
Trees greater than 14 inches in
diameter, measured at 4 Y2 feet above
the ground, shall be protected from
removal and damages in future
development of the district. Any
development within 50 feet of such tree
shall be reviewed prior to development
to assure protective measures are
included and in place.
Lighting shall conform to the design
overlay district standards. The intent is
to prevent light from commercial
developments from excessively
illuminating the property in question,
other properties or the night sky. Only
light fixtures which are categorized as
full cut-off fixtures shall be permitted.
The use of fully shielded floodlights are
permitted but not encouraged.
The ordinance provides for the
following specific standards for lighting
intensity based upon the activities
performed involved. Values are
presented in allowable foot candles (fc)
maintained (measured horizontally) at
grade and are to be averaged
throughout the site to avoid hot spots,
i.e. areas of extreme light intensity
relative to the remainder of the site:
Pedestrian areas/sidewalks
Minimum 0.2 fc Maximum 1.0 fc
Building entries
Minimum 1.0 fc Maximum 10.0 fc
Street lighting
Minimum 0.2 fc Maximum 1.0 fc
Parking area
Minimum 2.0 fc Maximum 4.0 fc
19
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
There are no trees located on this site.
The maximum allowable fixture
mounting height is proposed to be 38
feet. The photometric plan will provide
that foot candle at the property line will
be zero.
Pedestrian areas / sidewalks
Minimum 5.0 fc Maximum 18.0 fc
Building entries
Minimum 5.0 fc Maximum 18.0 fc
Has not been addressed.
Parking areas
Minimum 5.0 fc Maximum 18.0 fc
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.. G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
Playgrounds
Not applicable.
Maximum 5.0 fc
Sports grounds
Not applicable.
Maximum 20.2 fc
Site perimeter
Site perimeter
Maximum 0.5 fc
Minimum 5.0 fc Maximum 18.0 fc
Gas station canopies shall be
Not applicable.
illuminated at a maximum luminance of
thirty (30) fc and individual fixtures shall
be flush mounted or have the canopy
edge below the lowest light -emitting
point on the fixtures. All existing gas
station canopies that exceed this
standard shall be made compliant
within seven (7) years of the date of
adoption of this article.
Up lighting may be used to illuminate a
Has not been addressed by the
building, landscaping element or
applicant.
architectural feature, provided the
lighting design has a maximum
luminance of twelve (12) fc, measured
in a vertical plane. Down lighting is
preferred.
A lighting plan shall be submitted for Will comply.
staff review and approval prior to
issuance of building permits. The plan
shall contain the following information:
An area lighting plan, drawn to scale,
indicating all structures, parking lots,
building entrances, vehicular and
pedestrian traffic areas, vegetation that
may interfere with lighting, and adjacent
land uses that may be adversely
impacted by the lighting. The plan shall
20
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
contain a layout of all proposed fixtures
by location, orientation, aiming
direction, mounting height and type.
The submission shall include, in
addition to proposed area lighting, all
other exterior lighting, e.g.,
architectural, building entrance,
landscape, flagpole, sign, etc.
A ten -foot by ten -foot luminance grid
(point -by -point) of maintained foot-
candles overlaid on the site plan plotted
out to 0.0 foot-candles, which
demonstrates compliance with light
intensity standards.
Property, if for any reason, that cannot
be developed without violating the
standards of this article shall be
reviewed through the planned zoning
district (PZD) section of the zoning
ordinance, with the intent to devise a
workable development plan which is
consistent with the purpose and intent
of the overlay standards.
The property is being considered as a
PZD.
The site plan also indicates the placement of building signage along the interior
drive and along the street sides. The development is proposed as a "Life Style
Center" with a main street feel. The fronts of the buildings will be located along
the interior drive and the signage in this location will allow identification of the
tenants. In addition, the request is also to allow wall signage along the street
sides.
Building signage is intended to allow window, blade, awning and building signage
for the retail and theatre uses. Sign totals will equal 10% of the height multiplied
by the width of the fascia area to be "signed". For freestanding buildings,
building signage would be allowed on three sides, except the second or third sign
area total would be reduced by half, as an example:
A. Primary Entrance Elevation: Assuming 190' wide and 30' tall x 10% would
allow 570 total square feet for all building, blade window and/or awning
signs on the front elevation.
21
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO,; G (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z
0:3
B. Rear Elevation: Assuming 190' wide and 30' tall x 5% would allow
285 total square feet for all building, blade window and/or awning signs on
the rear elevation.
C. Side Elevation: Assuming 160' wide and 30' tall x 5% would allow
240 total square feet for all building, blade window and/or awning signs on
the side elevation.
Buildings with a second entrance "end -cap" or two faced storefronts would be
allowed a second sign as described in B or C above.
The development is proposing to place an identification sign at the St.
Vincent's/South University Avenue entrance mounted on the existing wall. The
sign is proposed with individual letters and project logo with a maximum area of
100 square feet. Two tenant identification signs are proposed with a maximum
height of six feet and a maximum sign area of 52 square feet_ The signs will be
masonry sign constructed of materials used on the shopping center building.
Four shopping center identification sign are proposed with a maximum height of
36 -feet and a maximum sign area of 430 square feet. The signage is larger than
signage typically allowed per the Overlay District. The signage is proposed with
an overall dimension of 36 feet in height and 20 feet in width. Seasonal Banners
will be placed on light poles within the development.
The applicant has indicated all mechanical equipment will be roof mounted and
screened from view by parapet walls. The applicant has also indicated the low
architectural walls mansard roofs, parapets, gable or high roofs conforming to the
general architectural theme of the center.
All dumpster facilities will be screened with structurally sound materials that use
materials directly used on the face of adjacent structures, and will be at locations
accessible to tenants; exact locations as yet undetermined. Any dumpsters
located in an area visible from the street will be additionally screened with trees
and/or hedges.
The applicant has indicated the street buffer along South University Avenue to
meet the minimum ordinance requirement of nine feet. The applicant has also
included landscape islands within the development to soften the impact of the on
site paved area. Pedestrian accesses are indicated to the site from all three
abutting streets.
The development is proposed to contain six lots. The lots have been indicated to
allow the developer flexibility should a potential user desire to own their own
Property- The development will be served by an Operating and Easement
Agreement, which will define cross access and cross parking agreements within
the development.
22
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G Cont.
FILE NO.: Z-4953-8
The development is proposed to contain 748,250 square feet of both residential
and commercial space and a total of 1,798 parking spaces. Of the 1,798 parking
spaces, 889 spaces (49 percent) are located within the existing parking deck or
the proposed underground parking garage. The site is proposed with
27.2 percent of the site covered with buildings and 25.8 percent of the site
covered with parking. The site plan indicates the placement of 42,800 square
feet of open space. The plaza area contains 15,750 square feet of open space
area and an additional 16,970 square feet of hardscaped in font of the buildings.
A 1,210 square foot open space area has been indicated with an architectural
landmark at the western end of the plaza drive. The remainder of the open
space is located distributed throughout the site. Based on the DOD, a total of
14,913 square feet of open space would typically be required.
Included within the 748,250 square feet of building area is 429,000 square feet of
residential or 57.3 percent. The residential units are
approximately 900 square feet of livable space per unit and ar maximum osed with
476 units are proposed. The developer has indicated the northwestern building
with alternative uses. The building is indicated with 162 apartment units or with a
127 room hotel. The building is proposed with four stories.
The site plan indicates a dedication of right of way per the Master Street Plan for
McKinley Street along the northern portion of the development. The site plan
indicates a dedication of 45 -feet. There is an existing 35 -foot street easement in
this area which will be publicly dedicated. A 60 -foot right of way is in place along
the southern portion of the development. The developE;r is requesting a waiver of
the right of way dedication along South University Avenue. The developer has
indicated sidewalks will be provided along St. Vincent's Circle and McKinley
Street north to the proposed drive of the hotel/apartment building. The request
includes a variance along McKinley Street to allow five-foot sidewalks
immediately adjacent to the curb. The request includes a variance from Sections
30-43 and 31-210 for driveway locations and widths on South University and
St. Vincent's.
An additional 140 linear feet within the proposed development for a bus pullout
lane is not feasible according to the developer due to the existing conditions
along St. Vincent's. The current grades allow access to the proposed
development in an area limited to approximately 140 linear feet along the south
property line. Within the area the developer will be handling the service/loading
areas of Anchors 1, 2 and 3, the south customer entrance to the development
and the pedestrian connectivity to the southern properties. The development will
construct an additional lane to St. Vincent's Circle allowing for the bus to stop
within the public right of way and allowing one lane of continued flow of traffic.
23
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-8
The developer is seeking a variance to allow an increased wall height along
McKinley Street. According to the developer a portion of the western wall may
exceed the 15 -foot maximum wall height allowed per the Land Alteration
Ordinance.
The developer's traffic engineer is working with City staff to determine the
capacities of the intersection of West Markham and McKinley Streets. The
existing lane configuration will be restriped to allow for one right, one left and one
combination left -through lane.
Staff is continuing to review the site plan. Staffs recommendation is forthcoming.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommendation forthcoming.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 27, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated
based on the number of comments raised at the March 0, 2008, Subdivision Committee
meeting, staff and the applicant requested the item be deferred to the May 8, 2008,
public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval of the deferral request. The
motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff and the applicant have continued to meet to resolve outstanding issues.
On April 30, 2008, both parties agreed to defer the item to allow time to address those
issues. Staff recommends approval of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMM1SS10N ACTION: (MAY 8, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated
the applicant and staff had continued to meet to resolve outstanding Issues and
on April 30, 2408, both parties agreed to defer the item to the May 22, 2008,
public hearing to allow time to address outstanding Issues. Staff presented a positive
recommendation of the deferral request.
24
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G_(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
There was no further discussion of the item. The commission voted to approve the item
for deferral on the consent agenda by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE: (MAY 22, 2008)
In staffs opinion Park Avenue has done a good job in trying to meet the development
criteria as established by the Mid -town Design Overlay District Ordinance. The
developers are providing a mixed-use development with residential and retail activities
to create a 24-7 environment on this site. The proposed retail uses are those identified
in the ULI Study and the Statement of Design and Programming Expectations. The
retail uses proposed include uses, which will meet the needs of the nearby
neighborhood residents. Placement of the cinema on the site further connects the
development with the neighborhood by providing a use that is currently not available to
the neighborhood.
The site contains two (2) large retailers as Anchors, which typically have criteria that
must be meet with regard to parking lot layout and a minimum criteria established for
the number parking spaces. The applicant is utilizing a parking deck and underground
parking to help reduce the number of surface parking spaces. The development
includes the placement of nearly 50 percent of the site's parking within the existing
garage or underground. Based on the current ordinance standard, parking for a
shopping center would be calculated at one space per 225 square feet of gross leasable
space. This development would typically be required to have 3,325 spaces. By
assessing the parking based on the individual uses of the center; residential, retail,
cinema, hotel, etc. the required parking would be 1,811 parking spaces. The Mid -town
Design Overlay District states parking may be as few as 50 percent of the requirement
but no more than the maximum allowed by the ordinance. The development is
proposed to have 1,798 spaces. The proposed number of parking spaces falls within
the standards established by the Overlay.
However, the site plan proposes large fields of parking that do not comply with the
standards established by the Overlay or the Statement of Expectations. Breaking up or
redistribution of the parking areas is encouraged by the Overlay. The Overlay states
surface parking shall be limited to the side and rear of the structure, unless grouped in
quantities of 50 spaces or less separated by a landscaping strip no less than the
perimeter landscape strip as required for the property by Chapter 15 of the code. The
Overlay states no parking shall be allowed within the front yard setback area. The site
plan as proposed does include parking within the front yard setback of South University
Avenue.
The common use area has been enlarged. The site plan indicates the placement of
15,760 square feet of common use area within the Plaza Area. Based on the Design
Overlay District requirements, a total of 14,913 square feet of common use area would
be required.
25
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G(Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
Per the Design Overlay, the facade treatment for new construction must include at least
60 percent of the ground floor level facing internal pedestrian public circulation areas or
streets to be glass -windows, entry features or displays. Some of the buildings as
proposed will not contain the minimum of 60 percent of the ground floor as
glass -windows, entry features or displays. Per the Overlay, buildings are to maintain a
distinction between upper and lower levels. Elevation greater than 18 feet in height
shall contain an architectural treatment, which visually divides the structure into stories.
The building elevations provided indicate architectural treatments on the multi -story
buildings to visually divide the structure into stories. The proposed elevations for the
major anchor have indicated an attempt to visually break up the height of the structure
through the use of different colors and materials.
Wall projections or recesses a minimum of three feet deep and a minimum of
20 continuous feet not to extend over 20 percent of the facade shall be required per the
Overlay. Arches, display windows, entry areas or awnings shall exist along at least
60 percent of the fagade. Projections will be included along the facades to break the
massing of the structure. Some of the buildings abutting the public rights of way will not
contain arches, display windows, entry areas or awnings along the fagade as required
by the Overlay. Per the Overlay, the primary facade and primary entrances of a building
shall be oriented parallel with the street, or to the principal vehicular or pedestrian
routes of travel whether public or private. The primary fagade and building entrance of
the Anchor buildings will be oriented parallel to the private vehicular routes of travel
within the development. All sides of buildings that face abutting public or private rights
of way, except alleys, shall feature at least one customer entrance. The buildings as
proposed will not contain customer entrances on all abutting streets. The buildings are
proposed with customer entrances on one side only. Rooflines are to be varied with
changes in height every 100 linear feet in building length. Parapets, mansard roofs,
gable roofs, high roofs, shall be used to conceal flat roofs and roof top equipment. The
site plan appears to comply with this standard. Possible exceptions on Anchors 1 and 3
may be required based on the information provided to staff. The elevation and roofline
variations of Anchor 1 have not been clearly defined to indicate the variations in
materials and height to break the visual massing of the building.
The lighting proposed for the site exceeds the maximum intensity typically allowed by
the Overlay. The applicant has stated all lighting will be contained within the site with
zero foot candles present at the property line.
There are four (4) individual tenant identification signs and all exceed the allowable
maximums of 72 square feet in area and 6 feet in height. The individual tenant
identification signs are proposed with a height of 36 feet and a sign area of 430 square
feet. There are four complex signs indicated. Per the Overlay, signage integrated into
free-standing vertical structures whose design theme and materials are directly related
to the primary development may be submitted for approval under the PZD process if
located along University southerly of Lee. No single elevation or face of such a
structure shall be more than 400 square feet. The total area of the complex sign
structures is 720 square feet (36'X 20').
NX
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
Two of the three out -lots adjacent to University Avenue have buildings with setbacks
proposed in excess of the typical maximum allowed by the Overlay. The Overlay states
front yard setbacks may be zero but will not be more than 20 -feet excepting in those
cases where grade changes make such setbacks impractical. Additionally, parking on
these out -lots is located within the front yard setback.
The Overlay states all driveways and internal streets shall have minimum five foot
sidewalks on both sides located away from the back of curb. Some of the drives do not
have sidewalks located along both sides. The Overlay also states all developments are
to include as part of their site plan pedestrian linkages through parking areas and to
adjacent buildings or developments. Crosswalks shall be incorporated at strategic
locations to provide pedestrian linkages to structures within the development. It
appears that there are areas within the development where pedestrian linkage is
inadequate.
The request includes a waiver of the right of way dedication for South University
Avenue. The existing right of way is five (5) feet short of the required right of way per
the Master Street Plan. Staff is supportive of the requested waiver of right of way
dedication.
While staff is generally supportive of the applicant's proposal for a mixed-use
redevelopment of this site, there are concerns related to the overall design concept and
some of the areas of non-compliance with the Midtown Design Overlay District criteria.
Based on the site plan it appears some elements of the project have the look and feel of
a typical suburban retail shopping center development with large anchor tenants and
large parking fields. Staff has concerns with the internal connectivity of the
development and the connectivity of the development with the adjoining neighborhood
and businesses. A portion of the site is indicated as a "main street" town center
development and establishes a sense of place but the sense of place has not been
integrated with the remainder of the development. Staff does not feel the development
is meeting the purpose and intent of the Mid -town Design Overlay District and the
expectations of the Statement of Design and Programming Expectations for the
Redevelopment of the University Mall. Based on these concerns, staff is not supportive
of the development plan as proposed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 22, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of non-support for the request. Staff stated the
development plan included 748,250 square feet of total building area utilizing the
existing two story parking structure as well as an underground parking garage that
would sit under one of the retail/multi-family building pods. The development was
27
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
proposed containing 1,798 parking spaces. Staff stated of the parking provided nearly
50 percent of the parking was located within the parking structure or underground. Staff
stated the development was proposed containing approximately 80,000 square feet of
retail/restaurant space, 213,000 square feet of larger retail anchor space a 27,000
square foot cinema with an estimated seating capacity of 1,300 persons, a residential
component containing a maximum of 476 units and a 127 room hotel which was
indicated as a potential multi -family apartment building with a maximum of 162 units.
Staff stated the building lot coverage was 336,250 square feet or 27.2 percent and the
parking lot coverage was 319,600 square feet or 25.8 percent. Staff stated the
development was indicated with common usable area totaling 15,760 square feet within
the plaza area of the town center. Staff stated additional common use areas were
indicated through out the site. Staff noted there was a variance from the Land Alteration
Ordinance to allow an increased wall height for the retaining wall located along
McKinley Street. Staff stated the developers were also seeking a waiver of the required
right of way dedication for South University Avenue. Staff stated they were supportive
of the variance request from the Land Alteration Ordinance and the waiver of right of
way dedication for South University Avenue.
Staff stated in their opinion Park Avenue had done a good job in trying to meet the
development criteria as established by the Mid -town Design Overlay District Ordinance.
Staff stated the developers were providing a mixed-use development with residential
and retail activities to create a 24-7 environment on the site. Staff stated the proposed
retail uses were those identified in the ULI Study and the Statement of Design and
Programming Expectations. Staff stated the retail uses proposed included uses, which
would meet the needs of the nearby neighborhood residents. Staff stated the
placement of the cinema on the site further connected the development with the
neighborhood by providing a use that was currently not available to the neighborhood.
Mr. Chuck Keller addressed the Commission on behalf of the development team. He
stated there had been numerous meeting with staff, area residents and the mid -town
redevelopment committee. He stated the site was limited by the access drives and the
grade of the site. He stated the desire to retain the existing parking structure also
constrained the development possibilities of the site. Mr. Keller stated the grade of St.
Vincent's Circle limited access points to a narrow 140 -foot area along the crest of the
hill. He stated the large anchor also had criteria that had to be met which also limited
the design capabilities of the site. He stated the anchor did construct two story
buildings but had indicated the two story buildings were limited to dense urban
environments where land and density did not allow for single story structures. He stated
the development was proposed as a median density mixed use development.
Mr. Keller stated based on the evolution of mixed use developments it had been
determined the mixed use concept as proposed was the most successful. He stated the
development was trying to meet the spirit of the Design Overlay District and the
Statement of Expectations.
m
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
Mr. Larry Good, the architect for the project, addressed the Commission providing
information of the site constraints and the proposed development rational. He stated
the topo and access were the two primary constraints. He stated the existing parking
structure had been reviewed and determined was suitable for reuse. He stated the
residential, the hotel and the cinema had been placed in the proposed areas to take
advantage of the parking structure. He stated the residences on the south side of the
town center would utilize the underground parking. He stated large retailers had
specific requirements and if they could not get parking fields in front of the store they
were not likely to locate in the center. He stated the large traditional retailers energized
the small retail shops. He stated the town center was the gateway to the development.
Mr. Good stated the development did not want multiple plaza areas. He stated two
buildings lined the drive to the development, which did not have parking in the front or
side yard. He stated the town center was proposed as a four-story building with ground
level retail and residential on the remaining floors. Mr. Good stated the building was
designed with a ratio of height to width to make the town center inviting. He stated the
four story buildings would define the space and the town center would terminate at the
west end with the placement of an architectural feature.
Mr. Good stated the desire was to create good linkage through the center. He stated the
pedestrian tables were designed to create a safe passageway for the pedestrians
through out the development. He stated the development was breaking the massing of
parking but was not providing parking lots with 50 spaces or fewer. He stated the
perimeter areas would be well handled and landscaped. He stated the open space
provided with the center was triple the required open space of the DOD. Mr. Good
stated the Anchor on McKinley Street was below the grade of McKinley Street, which
would visually break the massing of the structure. He stated changes in the wall plane
and height would also break the massing. Mr. Good stated customer entrances on all
street sides was not feasible. He stated the anchor tenant was not designed to handle
multiple entryways. He stated a defined front entrance would be provided within the
development. He stated consideration would be given to the walls facing McKinley
Street and St. Vincent's Circle to break the massing.
Mr. Jim Bell addressed the Commission in support. He stated he was representing the
Briarwood Neighborhood Association, which had previously sent a letter of opposition.
He stated the residents were in support of the development and understood the need
for the large parking fields in front of Anchor 1. He stated the truck entrance was
originally a concern but the developers had indicated varied paving materials would be
provided to alert the pedestrians and truck traffic of potential conflicts. He stated the
association now understood entrances would be provided from both McKinley and
St. Vincent's Circle to the development. He stated the pedestrian tables proposed were
important to provide connectivity through the site and the neighborhood was in full
support of the tables as proposed. Mr. Bell stated he felt with the redevelopment of this
site the area would see a boost and encourage new growth and businesses in the area.
Mr. Bell stated the Briarwood Neighborhood Association was in full support of the
development as proposed.
29
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G Cont. _ FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
Richard Downing addressed the Commission. He stated he previously held a seat on
the Commission and was Chair of the Commission. He stated he was on the
Commission during the time the ULI Study was being prepared for the City and worked
with staff and the Board of Directors to develop the Mid -Town Design Overlay District
Ordinance. He stated he wanted the City to follow through with development as was
planned with the Design Overlay District. He stated the project had a number of quality
attributes but the development also contained a number of attributes the area did not
need. He stated he was not sure the area needed a shopping center with a residential
component. He stated he felt the Commission should look closely and consider the
request and the proposed uses.
Mr. Craig Berry addressed the Commission with concerns. He stated as Chair of the
Mid -town Advisory Board he wanted to make the Commission aware of concerns. He
stated the Board was friendly to reinvestment. He stated there was some variability to
the site design and program uses. Mr. Berry stated the redevelopment efforts started
eight years ago for the mid -town area. He stated the City developed a DOD for the
area, which established not what was restricted but what was allowed within the District.
He stated the DOD allowed verticality and maximum build -out of the site. He stated he
did not feel the development was providing the maximum economic benefit.
Mr. Berry stated the City needed to review the site to ensure they were not missing
anything. He stated the developers were in a hurry and the review process was tenant
driven. He stated the development would be better suited for a phased review.
Mr. Berry stated the development should create a unique identity to the area when
completed. He stated there were some problems with the site design. He stated the
City had a contact with a design consultant to review the site plan and offer
suggestions. He stated he felt with the assistance of the design review specialist the
development would reach the right balance and feeling of an urban village in mid -town.
Commissioner Meyer asked what would make the development more palatable.
Mr. Berry stated the development lacked verticality and an office component. He stated
the development was not a walkable development. He stated the town center should be
functional and provide a use mix to sustain. Mr. Berry stated the development should
be transit friendly both internally and externally. He questioned residential above the
cinema.
Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission with concerns.
She stated the development did not appear to be pedestrian or bicyclist friendly. She
stated the areas east of University were bike and pedestrian friendly but the areas west
of University were not designed for walkers or bicyclist. She stated the signage
proposed seamed excessive. She stated the signage should be scaled to more closely
adhere to the DOD requirements.
30
May 22, 2008
M NO.: G
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
Mr. Keller stated they had received from staff some bullet points related to the overall
site design. He stated some were general and some were more specific. He stated the
developers would work with staff to address the points, which were addressable before
going to the Board of Directors. Mr. Keller stated the developers were also willing to
meet with the design professional under contract with the City prior to going to the
Board of Directors.
Commissioner Rector stated the development was a two -phased project. He stated
with the exception of the hotel the entire development would be constructed in the first
phase. Mr. Keller stated the intent was to develop the entire project in the first phase
but staff had suggested a phasing plan to allow flexibility. Commissioner Rector stated
the City had adopted a Design Overlay District for the area and was concerned with
how the area redeveloped. He stated the City had contacted with a design professional
to provide advice on the specifics of the redevelopment. Mr. Keller stated he did not
feel the development would meet 100 percent of the Design Overlay District
requirements. He stated his firm was willing to meet with staff and the design
professional to review suggestions for change prior to the Board of Directors meeting.
Chairman Taylor requested staff provide the listing of bullet points for the record. Staff
stated the bullet points were only suggestions. Staff stated they were not engineers and
had not placed any of the suggestions on paper to see if they were feasible. Staff
stated the suggestions were a result of a brainstorming session held the previous
afternoon and was not meant to be an all inclusive list of suggestions. Staff read the
listing which included better compliance with the Design Overlay District, better
pedestrian connectivity internally and externally, breaking up the parking fields to break
up the visual and physical impact, relocate Anchor 3, Anchor 2 and the associated retail
to the north with a rear yard relationship to the retail/restaurant thus relocating the
parking to the south in place of the buildings, create a more defined entry from
St. Vincent similar to the entry from South University Avenue, expand the concept of the
town center design through the'site rather than the typical power center concept, design
the buildings street exteriors with architectural elements to create the appearance of a
front fagade and reduce the sign areas of the ground mounted signage to more closely
comply with the overlay district.
Staff noted CATA was satisfied with the proposed transit stop. Staff stated there were
concerns with an existing fence located south of St. Vincent's Circle and the ability to
relocated the southern stop to an area corresponding with the northern stop to allow
ease of access to the transit stops.
Commissioner Williams stated the site was an important piece of land within the City
and the development of the site would impact the area and the City for a number of
years. He stated he felt it important the redevelopment of the site be something that
would sustain and would be a benefit to the City for 10 to 20 years in the future.
31
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z -4953-B
Commissioner Pruitt stated she felt the project was a good project. She questioned
staff as to how they felt the parking could be broken. Staff stated the DOD required
parking fields with less than 50 spaces. Staff stated connectivity was an important
aspect of the development. Staff stated with the connectivity this would begin breaking
the parking lot areas and offer that visual break.
Chairman Taylor stated he too felt this an important project. He stated it was important
the development be a development the City would be proud of for a number of years.
Staff stated the item would require three separate votes. Staff stated the application
included the variance request for the Land Alteration Ordinance, the request for the
waiver of right of way dedication along South University Avenue and the zoning request.
The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the variance request from the Land
Alteration Ordinance to allow an increased wall height along McKinley Street. The
motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 recusal (Commissioner
Yates and Commissioner Ferstl).
The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the waiver request of the right of way
dedication along South University Avenue. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent and 2 recusal (Commissioner Yates and Commissioner Ferstl).
The chair entertained a motion for approval of the requested PCD. The motion carried
by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 noes, 2 absent and 2 recusal (Commissioner Yates and
Commissioner Ferstl).