Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5038-A Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -5038-A (Cont. may sell items. However, this would not be their principal occupancy. As an understanding was reached on the accessory relationship of the remaining office warehouse uses. The Chairman then requested whether those objectors present wished to address the Commission. Mr. Ronald J. Strobel was present and came forward to make a statement about his concerns on the proposal. Mr. Strobel indicated the location of his property was Bella Rosa Drive frontage with his lot rearing upon the southern most portion of this ownership, which he understands has now been sold to another person. A large drainageway lies between his property and the rear of the building. The question which he proposed of most concern was the future use of the adjacent vacant properties around his area. If this is allowed to go to a commercial activity, it would affect his land. He indicated he was a resident of the area for 24 years. A commissioner asked for a specific location of Mr. Strobel's residence and it was pointed to on a map. Commissioner VonTungeln then requested of staff, information as to how this area of Highway 10 was developed on the plan and how it reached the current land use relationships that exist. Jim Lawson reported that the adopted plan on this area specified transition zone for properties along Highway 10. He continued by saying that the transition zone provided for maintenance of the existing residential relationships along with the possibility through a process such as the one utilized in this case for office activities. Lawson pointed out that the 0-2 office district allowed accessory commercial activity with a limit of 10% of the gross floor area. Staff felt like that 10% was appropriate in this instance; however, when the applicant, Mr. Mathis, presented his application, the percentage exceeded 26%. Additionally, the entirety of the accessory commercial proposed by Mr. Mathis does not share a true accessory relationship. In fact, it is located on a separate lot in one building with all the commercial in one place. Commissioner Oleson then asked if this property had a previous history or whether it had been before the Commission in the last year or so. Staff responded by saying yes and it had been filed much in the same form as presented in this application. However, the applicant did not pursue the development beyond the Planning Commission level. Chairman McDaniel then pointed out the best he could recall from the previous plan that a plan offered in this instance was a less intense development. Jim Lawson of staff supported this information by stating staff views this as less intense development. A general discussion then followed involving comments concerning the floodway and the location of the objector's residence. Mr. Ralph Bozeman, the architect for the project, then offered his comments on this proposal. Mr. Bozeman pointed out that the previous application, about a year ago, consisted of some 18 acres at which time they proposed no dedication to the City of open space 5 FILE NO.; Z -5038-A (Cont. and floodlands. The rear portion of the property which his now been sold was simply set aside for future use. He stated, "the property south of the creek has now been sold with access provided to Gooch Lane and would be utilized for residential purposes." He further expanded his comments by saying approximately 3 acres of the total project will now be dedicated to the City for purposes of protecting the floodway along the south boundary of the property to be developed as office warehouse. Mr. Bozeman expressed the thought that he felt this large open space buffer in the floodway was a good protective area between the residential to the south and west and his client's property. Mr. Bozeman pointed out that the applicant did not pursue his case beyond the Planning Commission level last time although he had a recommendation of approval. The indications they were receiving was that the City Board would not approve it. As to the potential, Commissioner Putnam then asked staff to describe adjacent land uses on the east and west to better familiarize him with the property. Staff reported that the Good Earth Nursery lies immediately to the east and fronting Highway 10, and there is a row of residential lots on the west and fronting on Bella Rosa Drive. Commissioner VonTungeln then recognized Bob Brown of the staff for purposes of clarifying the ordinance requirements on landscaping. Mr. Brown outlined the buffer and landscape requirements set by ordinance. The ordinance standards based in the Highway 10 Overlay District apply. He reported that there would be a fence along the west property line, behind the residential lots. Jim Lawson expanded on Mr. Brown's comments by pointing out the relationship of the parking and buildings on the south line of this property which normally would be a rear buffer and landscape area, with the relationship of the large dedicated 3 acre floodway. Staff is supporting a variance to allow the intrusion. The Chairman then stated he felt that all of the issues had been thoroughly developed. He asked for a motion on the issue. The Commission then voted on a motion to approve the application with the modifications included in the staff recommendation and the presentation made here today. The application was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. FILE NO.: Z -5038-A Cont 5. The building and parking landscaping should be provided per ordinance standard. 6. The 30 foot buffer along Highway 10 has some parking encroachment. This should be reviewed with our office to determine how much additional area can be provided along the frontage to compensate for the encroachment. 7. A sprinkler system should be placed in the 40 foot area for landscaping per Highway 10 Overlay standards. S. The rear parking area encroaches upon required landscape buffer. A variance should be requested for this. 9. Change the title on this application from PCD to POD as being in keeping with the transition zone along Highway 10. E. ANALYSIS• The Planning staff's view of this proposal is that the basic design is good for all of the buildings, except the freestanding commercial structure. It is our feeling that a building designed and set apart on a separate lot in this fashion is not accessory in a conventional sense to an office/warehouse or office/showroom development. Staff is not opposed to the idea of the inclusion of some commercial in this project; however, we feel that 26% is an excessive coverage on this site. If all of the commercial is provided in a single building on a detached lot, we feel this is not in keeping with the intent of the Overlay District and the Highway 10 land use plan which intends this area as a transition zone for office and/or multifamily. We feel there are several designs which could be incorporated that would reduce the amount of commercial on Lot 1 and perhaps leave the balance of the building as office/commercial mix within the several buildings. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of this project subject to resolution of the several items related to the commercial accessory uses and the several questions set forth in our design review. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 15, 1992) This item was discussed along with Item No. 1 of this agenda, the preliminary plat. There were no significant design related issues other than the percentage of floor space devoted to commercial and its location. Most if not all of the issues identified in Item D above are answerable and can be solved by working with staff prior to the Board meeting on the rezoning. 3- FILE NO.: Z -5038-A Cont`. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 3, 1992) The Chairman asked the staff to present its recommendation on this issue. Richard Wood of the staff advised the Commission that because Item Nos. 4 and 1 deal with the same property in a PUD application, they should be dealt with as a single hearing item. Wood continued by pointing out there is one letter of objection in the case file from the property owner to the west along Bella Rosa Drive. He also indicated that a revised plan has been submitted making the detailed changes which have been discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Wood pointed out that up to a point immediately before the meeting today, there had been no change proposed by the applicant in the use proposal. This was the "significant objection by staff, however, Mr. Joe White, representing Mr. Mathis, is apparently present today to offer a modification relative to the accessory commercial. Wood pointed out that the staff recommendation is approval of the project only on a basis of limitation of 10% accessory commercial, a maximum based upon the gross building floor area on all of the lots in the plat. Commissioner Putnam then raised a question as to whether or not this property is within a commercial node and the Highway 10 plan. Jim Lawson responded by stating "no, it was not" - "that this was located in a transition zone which provides for office and multifamily upon filing the PUD application." Chairman McDaniel then asked Mr. White to come forward and make his presentation. Mr. White reported that until as recently as yesterday that he had not understood the staff was totally opposed to the project based upon this commercial issue. Mr. White stated that in conversations with Mr. Mathis, the owner, on yesterday and today that Mr. Mathis wanted to reposition his application. Mr. Mathis has offered that the commercial use on these several lots would be limited to 10% of the gross building area and limited to the one building. This building would be placed upon Lot 1. Mr. White stated the building on that lot could be noted and they would make a commitment to limit the commercial occupancy to 4,000 square feet within that building. The remainder of the structure to be occupied by office uses. Jim Lawson then requested Mr. White address the issue of whether or not they proposed to keep the building on Lot 1 at the current dimension,, but simply reduce the -maximum amount of commercial in that building to 4,000 square feet. Mr. White responded by stating their proposal was to retain the building size and simply commit that they would not have more than 4,000 square feet of accessory commercial. Mr. Lawson then stated he understood now that there would not be other "across the counter sales" in the other buildings on the other lots. Mr. White pointed out that some of the uses in those buildings will be office showroom warehouse which would in fact sell items, but not as the principal use. A brief discussion followed in which it was determined by staff and Mr. White that the uses identified as office showroom/warehouse would in fact include activities which 4 November 3, 1992 ITEM NO.: 4(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z -5038-A A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: This developer has filed a planned unit development application on a tract of land previously reviewed by the Commission in February of this year. The application submitted is quite similar in nature. The number of lots are the same. The configuration has changed somewhat. The building on the commercial lot is basically the same as that presented previously with minor changes. The owner has sold a portion of the property lying south across the creek, thereby eliminating it from the preliminary plat and PUD offered at this time. There were no subdivision issues related to that sale. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This tract of land is somewhat flat and low and adjacent to a large drainageway. Most of the site is involved in the 100 year floodplain or floodway. There is existing natural timber and underbrush on the site and one or more small outbuildings. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Dedicate the f loodway along the south boundary to the City of Little Rock for permanent open space and drainage management. A water main extension will be required to serve this project. A front footage charge applies for domestic services larger than 3/4 inches or fire services larger than 4 inches off Highway 10. Sewer main outfall is located south of this property. Contact should be made with Little Rock Waste Water Utility for details. An extension will be required with easements to serve all lots. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: 1. Explain office and warehouse as it is noted on the site plan. Are they interrelated or separate uses? Also, cover letter indicates office/showroom. There are three different definitions in the zoning ordinance. One should be chosen as applicable to this site. 2. Develop a use list for the retail. This list will be used for purposes of identifying the use groups and exclusion of various activities which are inappropriate to a planned office development. 3. The commercial building exceeds the floor area percentage that staff feels appropriate in a transition zone as an accessory structure. The building currently occupies approximately 26% of the total building gross leasable area and 10% mixed into the various buildings is appropriate. 2 FILE NO.: Z -5038-A Cont: tm C. PROPOSAL RE UEST: This developer has filed a planned unit development application on a tract of land previously reviewed by the Commission in February of this year. The application submitted is quite similar in nature. The number of lots are the same. The configuration has changed somewhat. The building on the commercial lot is basically the same as that presented previously with minor changes. The owner has sold a portion of the property lying south across the creek, thereby eliminating it from the preliminary plat and PUD offered at this time. There were no subdivision issues related to that sale. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This tract of land is somewhat flat and low and adjacent to a large drainageway. Most of the site is involved in the 100 year floodplain or floodway. There is existing natural timber and underbrush on the site and one or more small outbuildings. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Dedicate the floodway along the south boundary to the City of Little Rock for permanent open space and drainage management. A water main extension will be required to serve this project. A front footage charge applies for domestic services larger than 3/4 inches or fire services larger than 4 inches off Highway 10. Sewer main outfall is located south of this property. Contact should be made with Little Rock Waste Water Utility for details. An extension will be required with easements to serve all lots. ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: 1. Explain office and warehouse as it is noted on the site plan. Are they interrelated or separate uses? Also, cover letter indicates office/showroom. There are three different definitions in the zoning ordinance. One should be chosen as applicable to this site. 2. Develop a use list for the retail. This list will be used for purposes of identifying the use groups and exclusion of various activities which are inappropriate to a planned office development. 3. The commercial building exceeds the floor area percentage that staff feels appropriate in a transition zone as an accessory structure. The building currently occupies approximately 26% of the total building gross leasable area and loo mixed into the various buildings is appropriate. 4. Explain the separation on Lot 4 and the two buildings. Does this provide for staging? FILE NO.: Z -5038-A NAME: Seven Acres Business Park - PCD (Application changed,to POD as result of staff recommendation.) LOCATION: South side of State Highway 10 approximately 200 feet east of Bella Rosa Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: WILLIAM V. MATHIS WHITE-DATERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. #4 Valley Club Circle 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72201 227-5490 374-1666 AREA: 7.1 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 540 ft. ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Office/Warehouse and Retail PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The property as presented is undeveloped and zoned R-2 within the Highway 10 Overlay District transition zone. The major problem in developing this site is that the majority of the property lies within the 100 year floodplain. Taylor Loop Creek lies on the south boundary of this PUD. The cost of earth fill and its proximity to Cantrell Road precludes consideration for residential home sites. The developer feels there is a need in this vicinity for a small amount of retail use and mixed office/showroom/warehouse development. The plan presented meets or exceeds the overlay district requirements for setback buffer and landscape. The plan is to subdivide the site into four lots with each lot taking access from the interior street. Only one access to Cantrell Road is planned. The retail and commercial use will be on Lot 1 which is the northwest corner of the site. A 13,200 square foot building with 60 parking spaces is planned. All other lots are to be used for office/showroom/warehouse with ample circulation and parking for each facility. Overall building, driveway and parking areas to land ratios are well within the acceptable limits. The two front buildings will be of the same architecture, with remaining buildings in the rear using the same design., 1 FILE NO.: Z-5038-A(Cont.) A. B. C. PROPOSAL RE UEST: This developer has filed a planned unit development application on a tract of land previously reviewed by the Commission in February of this year. The application submitted is quite similar in nature. The number of lots are the same. The configuration has changed somewhat. The building on the commercial lot is basically the same as that presented previously with minor changes. The owner has sold a portion of the property lying south across the creek, thereby eliminating it from the preliminary plat and PUD offered at this time. There were no subdivision issues related to that sale. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This tract of land is somewhat flat and low and adjacent to a large drainageway. Most of the site is involved in the 100 year floodplain or floodway. There is existing natural timber and underbrush on the site and one or more small outbuildings. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Dedicate the floodway along the south boundary to the City of Little Rock for permanent open space and drainage management. A water main extension will be required to serve this project. A front footage charge applies for domestic services larger than 3/4 inches or fire services larger than 4 inches off Highway 10. Sewer main outfall is located south of this property. Contact should be made with Little Rock Waste Water Utility for details. An extension will be required with easements to serve all lots. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: 1. Explain office and warehouse as it is noted on the site plan. Are they interrelated or separate uses? Also, cover letter indicates office/showroom. There are three different definitions in the zoning ordinance. One should be chosen as applicable to this site. 2. Develop a use list for the retail. This list will be used for purposes of identifying the use groups and exclusion of various activities which are inappropriate to a planned office development. 3. The commercial building exceeds the floor area percentage that staff feels appropriate in a transition zone as an accessory structure. The building currently occupies approximately 26% of the total building gross leasable area and 10% mixed into the various buildings is appropriate. 4. Explain the separation on Lot 4 and the two buildings. Does this provide for staging? N FILE NO.: Z -5038-A Cont. 5. The building and parking landscaping should be provided per ordinance standard. 6. The 30 foot buffer along Highway 10 has some parking encroachment. This should be reviewed with our office to determine how much additional area can be provided along the frontage to compensate for the encroachment. 7. A sprinkler system should be placed in the 40 foot area for landscaping per Highway 10 Overlay standards. 8. The rear parking area encroaches upon required landscape buffer. A variance should be requested for this. 9. Change the title on this application from PCD to POD as being in keeping with the transition zone along Highway 10. E. ANALYSIS: The Planning staff's view of this proposal is that the basic design is good for all of the buildings, except the freestanding commercial structure. It is our feeling that a building designed and set apart on a separate lot in this fashion is not accessory in a conventional sense to an office/warehouse or office/showroom development. Staff is not opposed to the idea of the inclusion of some commercial in this project; however, we feel that 26% is an excessive coverage on this site. If all df the commercial is provided in a single building on a detached lot, we feel this is not in keeping with the intent of the Overlay District and the Highway 10 land use plan which intends this area as a transition zone for office and/or multifamily. We feel there are several designs which could be incorporated that would reduce the amount of commercial on Lot 1 and perhaps leave the balance of the building as office/commercial mix within the several buildings. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of this project subject to resolution of the several items related to the commercial accessory uses and the several questions set forth in our design review. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 15, 1992) This item was discussed along with Item No. 1 of this agenda, the preliminary plat. There were no significant design related issues other than the percentage of floor space devoted to commercial and its location. Most if not all of the issues identified in Item D above are answerable and can be solved by working with staff prior to the Board meeting on the rezoning. 3. FILE NO.: Z-5038-A(Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 3, 1992) The Chairman asked the staff to present its recommendation on this issue. Richard Wood of the staff advised the Commission that because Item Nos. 4 and 1 deal with the same property in a PUD application, they should be dealt with as a single hearing item. Wood continued by pointing out there is one letter of objection in the case file from the property owner to the west along Bella Rosa Drive. He also indicated that a revised plan has been submitted making the detailed changes which have been discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Wood pointed out that up to a point immediately before the meeting today, there had been no change proposed by the applicant in the use proposal. This was the significant objection by staff, however, Mr. Joe White, representing Mr. Mathis, is apparently present today to offer a modification relative to the accessory commercial. Wood pointed out that the staff recommendation is approval of the project only on a basis of limitation of loo accessory commercial, a maximum based upon the gross building floor area on all of the lots in the plat. Commissioner Putnam then raised a question as to whether or not this property is within a commercial node and the Highway 10 plan. Jim Lawson responded by stating "no, it was not" - "that this was located in a transition zone which provides for office and multifamily upon filing the PUD application." Chairman McDaniel then asked Mr. White to come forward and make his presentation. Mr. White reported that until as recently as yesterday that he had not understood the staff was totally opposed to the project based upon this commercial issue. Mr. White stated that in conversations with Mr. Mathis, the owner, on yesterday and today that Mr. Mathis wanted to reposition his application. Mr. Mathis has offered that the commercial use on these several lots would be limited to 10% of the gross building area and limited to the one building. This building would be placed upon Lot 1. Mr. White stated the building on that lot could be noted and they would make a commitment to limit the commercial occupancy to 4,000 square feet within that building. The remainder of the structure to be occupied by office uses. Jim Lawson then requested Mr. White address the issue of whether or not they proposed to keep the building on Lot 1 at the current dimension,, but simply reduce the maximum amount of commercial in that building to 4,000 square feet. Mr. White responded by stating their proposal was to retain the building size and simply commit that they would not have more than 4,000 square feet of accessory commercial. Mr. Lawson then stated he understood now that there would not be other "across the counter sales" in the other buildings on the other lots. Mr. White pointed out that some of the uses in those buildings will be office showroom warehouse which would in fact sell items, but not as the principal use. A brief discussion followed in which it was determined by staff and Mr. White that the uses identified as office showroom/warehouse would in fact include activities which 4 FILE NO.: Z -5038-A (Cont. may sell items. However, this would not be their principal occupancy. As an understanding was reached on the accessory relationship of the remaining office warehouse uses. The Chairman then requested whether those objectors present wished to address the Commission. Mr. Ronald J. Strobel was present and came forward to make a statement about his concerns on the proposal. Mr. Strobel indicated the location of his property was Bella Rosa Drive frontage with his lot rearing upon the southern most portion of this ownership, which he understands has now been sold to another person. A large drainageway lies between his property and the rear of the building. The question which he proposed of most concern was the future use of the adjacent vacant properties around his area. If this is allowed to go to a commercial activity, it would affect his land. He indicated he was a resident of the area for 24 years. A commissioner asked for a specific location of Mr. Strobel's residence and it was pointed to on a map. Commissioner VonTungeln then requested of staff, information as to how this area of Highway 10 was developed on the plan and how it reached the current land use relationships that exist. Jim Lawson reported that the adopted plan on this area specified transition zone for properties along Highway 10. He continued by saying that the transition zone provided for maintenance of the existing residential relationships along with the possibility through a process such as the one utilized in this case for office activities. Lawson pointed out that the 0-2 office district allowed accessory commercial activity with a limit of 100, of the gross floor area. Staff felt like that 10% was appropriate in this instance; however, when the applicant, Mr. Mathis, presented his application, the percentage exceeded 26%. Additionally, the entirety of the accessory commercial proposed by Mr. Mathis does not share a true accessory relationship. In fact, it is located on a separate lot in one building with all the commercial in one place. Commissioner Oleson then asked if this property had a previous history or whether it had been before the Commission in the last year or so. Staff responded by saying yes and it had been filed much in the same form as presented in this application. However, the applicant did not pursue the development beyond the Planning Commission level. Chairman McDaniel then pointed out the best he could recall from the previous plan that a plan offered in this instance was a less intense development. Jim Lawson of staff supported this information by stating staff views this as less intense development. A general discussion then followed involving comments concerning the floodway and the location of the objector's residence. Mr. Ralph Bozeman, the architect for the project, then offered his comments on this proposal. Mr. Bozeman pointed out that the previous application, about a year ago, consisted of some 18 acres at which time they proposed no dedication to the City of open space 5 FILE NO.: Z -5038-A _(Cont. and floodlands. The rear portion of the property which his now been sold was simply set aside for future use. He stated, "the property south of the creek has now been sold with access provided to Gooch Lane and would be utilized for residential purposes." He further expanded his comments by saying approximately 3 acres of the total project will now be dedicated to the City for purposes of protecting the floodway along the south boundary of the property to be developed as office warehouse. Mr. Bozeman expressed the thought that he felt this large open space buffer in the floodway was a good protective area between the residential to the south and west and his client's property. Mr. Bozeman pointed out that the applicant did not pursue his case beyond the Planning Commission level last time although he had a recommendation of approval. The indications they were receiving was that the City Board would not approve it. As to the potential, Commissioner Putnam then asked staff to describe adjacent land uses on the east and west to better familiarize him with the property. Staff reported that the Good Earth Nursery lies immediately to the east and fronting Highway 10, and there is a row of residential lots on the west and fronting on Bella Rosa Drive. Commissioner VonTungeln then recognized Bob Brown of the staff for purposes of clarifying the ordinance requirements on landscaping. Mr. Brown outlined the buffer and landscape requirements set by ordinance. The ordinance standards based in the Highway 10 Overlay District apply. He reported that there would be a fence along the west property line, behind the residential lots. Jim Lawson expanded on Mr. Brown's comments by pointing out the relationship of the parking and buildings on the south line of this property which normally would be a rear buffer and landscape area, with the relationship of the large dedicated 3 acre floodway. Staff is supporting a variance to allow the intrusion. The Chairman then stated he felt that all of the issues had been thoroughly developed. He asked for a motion on the issue. The Commission then voted on a motion to approve the application with the modifications included in the staff recommendation and the presentation made here today. The application was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. 6 November 3, 1992 ITEM NO.: 4 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5038-A The Chairman then stated h thoroughly developed. He Commission then voted on a the modifications included presentation made here tod vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and e felt th asked fo motion in the ay. The 1 absent. 7 at all of the issues had be r a motion on the issue. Th to approve the application w staff recommendation and the application was approved by en e ith a November 3, 1992 ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z -5038-A Commissioner Oleson then asked if this property had a previous history or whether it had been before the Commission in the last year or so. Staff responded by saying yes and it had been filed much in the same form as presented in this application. However, the applicant did not pursue the development beyond the Planning Commission level. Chairman McDaniel then pointed out the best he could recall from the previous plan that a plan offered in this instance was a less intense development. Jim Lawson of staff supported this information by stating staff views this as less intense development. A general discussion then followed involving comments concerning the floodway and the location of the objector's residence. Mr. Ralph Bozeman, the architect for the project, then offered his comments on this proposal. Mr. Bozeman pointed out that the previous application, about a year ago, consisted of some 18 acres at which time they proposed no dedication to the City of open space and floodlands. The rear portion of the property which his now been sold was simply set aside for future use. He stated, "the property south of the creek has now been sold with access provided to Gooch Lane and would be utilized for residential purposes." He further expanded his comments by saying approximately 3 acres of the total project will now be dedicated to the City for purposes of protecting the floodway along the south boundary of the property to be developed as office warehouse. Mr. Bozeman expressed the thought that he felt this large open space buffer in the floodway was a good protective area between the residential to the south and west and his client's property. Mr. Bozeman pointed out that the applicant did not pursue his case beyond the Planning Commission level last time although he had a recommendation of approval. The indications they were receiving was that the City Board would not approve it. As to the potential, Commissioner Putnam then asked staff to describe adjacent land uses on the east and west to better familiarize him with the property. Staff reported that the Good Earth Nursery lies immediately to the east and fronting Highway 10, and there is a row of residential lots on the west and fronting on Bella Rosa Drive. Commissioner VonTungeln then recognized Bob Brown of the staff for purposes of clarifying the ordinance requirements on landscaping. Mr. Brown outlined the buffer and landscape requirements set by ordinance. The ordinance standards based in the Highway 10 Overlay District apply. He reported that there would be a fence along the west property line, behind the residential lots. Jim Lawson expanded on Mr. Brown's comments by pointing out the relationship of the parking and buildings on the south line of this property which normally would be a rear buffer and landscape area, with the relationship of the large dedicated 3 acre floodway. Staff is supporting a variance to allow the intrusion. C November 3, 1992 ITEM NO.: 4 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5038-A Jim Lawson then requested Mr. White address the issue of whether or not they proposed to keep the building on Lot 1 at the current dimension, but simply reduce the maximum amount of commercial in that building to 4,000 square feet. Mr. White responded by stating their proposal was to retain the building size and simply commit that they would not have more than 4,000 square feet of accessory commercial. Mr. Lawson then stated he understood now that there would not be other "across the counter sales" in the other buildings on the other lots. Mr. White pointed out that some of the uses in those buildings will be office showroom warehouse which would in fact sell items, but not as the principal use. A brief discussion followed in which it was determined by staff and Mr. White that the uses identified as office showroom/warehouse would in fact include activities which may sell items. However, this would not be their principal occupancy. As an understanding was reached on the accessory relationship of the remaining office warehouse uses. The Chairman then requested whether those objectors present wished to address the Commission. Mr. Ronald J. Strobel was present and came forward to make a statement about his concerns on the proposal. Mr. Strobel indicated the location of his property was Bella Rosa Drive frontage with his lot rearing upon the southern most portion of this ownership, which he understands has now been sold to another person. A large drainageway lies between his property and the rear of the building. The question which he proposed of most concern was the future use of the adjacent vacant properties around his area. If this is allowed to go to a commercial activity, it would affect his land. He indicated he was a resident of the area for 24 years. A commissioner asked for a specific location of Mr. Strobel's residence and it was pointed to on a map. Commissioner VonTungeln then requested of staff, information as to how this area of Highway 10 was developed on the plan and how it reached the current land use relationships that exist. Jim Lawson reported that the adopted plan on this area specified transition zone for properties along Highway 1,0. He continued by saying that the transition zone provided for maintenance of the existing residential relationships along with the possibility through a process such as the one utilized in this case for office activities. Lawson pointed out that the 0-2 office district allowed accessory commercial activity with a limit of 10% of the gross floor area. Staff felt like that 10% was appropriate in this instance; however, when the applicant, Mr. Mathis, presented his application, the percentage exceeded 26%. Additionally, the entirety of the accessory commercial proposed by Mr. Mathis does not share a true accessory relationship. In fact, it is located on a separate lot in one building with all the commercial in one place. 5 November 3, 1992 TTEM NO.: 4 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5038-A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 15, 1992) This item was discussed along with Item No. 1 of this agenda, the preliminary plat. There were no significant design related issues other than the percentage of floor space devoted to commercial and its location. Most if not all of the issues identified in Item D above are answerable and can be solved by working with staff prior to the Board meeting on the rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 3, 1992) The Chairman asked the staff to present its recommendation on this issue. Richard Wood of the staff advised the Commission that because Item Nos. 4 and 1 deal with the same property in a PUD application, they should be dealt with as a single hearing item. Wood continued by pointing out there is one letter of objection in the case file from the property owner to the west along Bella Rosa Drive. He also indicated that a revised plan has been submitted making the detailed changes which have been discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Wood pointed out that up to a point immediately before the meeting today, there had been no change proposed by the applicant in the use proposal. This was the significant objection by staff, however, Mr. Joe White, representing Mr. Mathis, is apparently present today to offer a modification relative to the accessory commercial. Wood pointed out that the staff recommendation is approval of the project only on a basis of limitation of 10% accessory commercial, a maximum based upon the gross building floor area on all of the lots in the plat. Commissioner Putnam then raised a question as to whether or not this property is within a commercial node and the Highway 10 plan. Jim Lawson responded by stating "no, it was not" - "that this was located in a transition zone which provides for office and multifamily upon filing the PUD application." Chairman McDaniel then asked Mr. White to come forward and make his presentation. Mr. White reported that until as recently as yesterday that he had not understood the staff was totally opposed to the project based upon this commercial issue. Mr. White stated that in conversations with Mr. Mathis, the owner, on yesterday and today that Mr. Mathis wanted to reposition his application. Mr. Mathis has offered that the commercial use on these several lots would be limited to 10% of the gross building area and limited to the one building. This building would be placed upon Lot 1. Mr. White stated the building on that lot could be noted and they would make a commitment to limit the commercial occupancy to 4,000 square feet within that building. The remainder of the structure to be occupied by office uses. 4 November 3, 1992 ITEM NO.: 4 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-5038 -A 4. Explain the separation on Lot 4 and the two buildings. Does this provide for staging? 5. The building and parking landscaping should be provided per ordinance standard. 6. The 30 foot buffer along Highway 10 has some parking encroachment. This should be reviewed with our office to determine how much additional area can be provided along the frontage to compensate for the encroachment. 7. A sprinkler system should be placed in the 40 foot area for landscaping per Highway 3.0 Overlay standards. 8. The rear parking area encroaches upon required landscape buffer. A variance should be requested for this. 9. Change the title on this application from PCD to POD as being in keeping with the transition zone along Highway 10. E. ANALYSIS: The Planning staff's view of this proposal is that the basic design is good for all of the buildings, except the freestanding commercial structure. It is our feeling that a building designed and set apart on a separate lot in this fashion is not accessory in a conventional sense to an office/warehouse or office/showroom development. Staff is not opposed to the idea of the inclusion of some commercial in this project; however, we feel that 26% is an excessive coverage on this site. If all of the commercial is provided in a single building on a detached lot, we feel this is not in keeping with the intent of the Overlay District and the Highway 10 land use plan which intends this area as a transition zone for office and/or multifamily. We feel there are several designs which could be incorporated that would reduce the amount of commercial on Lot 1 and perhaps leave the balance of the building as office/commercial mix within the several buildings. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of this project subject to resolution of the several items related to the commercial accessory uses and the several questions set forth in our design review. 3 November 3, 1992 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z -5038-A NAME: Seven Acres Business Park - PCD (Application changed to POD as result of staff recommendation.) LOCATION: South side of State Highway 10 approximately 200 feet east of Bella Rosa Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• WILLIAM V. MATHIS WHITE-DATERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. #4 Valley Club Circle 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72201 227-5490 374-1666 AREA: 7.1 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 540 ft. ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Office/Warehouse and Retail PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The property as presented is undeveloped and zoned R-2 within the Highway 10 Overlay District transition zone. The major problem in developing this site is that the majority of the property lies within the 100 year floodplain. Taylor Loop Creek lies on the south boundary of this PUD. The cost of earth fill and its proximity to Cantrell Road precludes consideration for residential home sites. The developer feels there is a need in this vicinity for a small amount of retail use and mixed office/showroom/warehouse development. The plan presented meets or exceeds the overlay district requirements for setback buffer and landscape. The plan is to subdivide the site into four lots with each lot taking access from the interior street. Only one access to Cantrell Road is planned. The retail and commercial use will be on Lot 1 which is the northwest corner of the site. A 13,200 square foot building with 60 parking spaces is planned. All other lots are to be used for office/showroom/warehouse with ample circulation and parking for each facility. Overall building, driveway and parking areas to land ratios are well within the acceptable limits. The two front buildings will be of the same architecture, with remaining buildings in the rear using the same design. 1 1 1. Meeting Date: December 1,'1992 2. Case No.: Z -5038-A 3. Request: To establish a POD District titled Seven Acres Business Park. 4. Location: South side of State Highway No. 10, east of Bella Rosa Drive 5. Owner/Applicant: William V. Mathis 6. Existing Status: Partially developed land with small outbuildings, unoccupied at this time. 7. Proposed Use: To develop a planned office district on several platted lots for purposes of office, office/showroom/warehouse and accessory commercial. 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the application conditioned on the reduction of the accessory commercial from 26% of total floor area to a maximum of 10% of total floor area and retitling the project from PCD to POD. 9. planning Commission Recommendation: Approval as recommended by the staff. 10. Conditions or Issues Remaining to be Resolved: None 11. Right -of -Way Issues: The dedication of the floodway along the south boundary to the City of Little Rock. 12. Recommendation Forwarded With: A vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent and 0 abstention. 13. Obiectors: One person in attendance objecting to the proposal. 14. Neighborhood Plan: Chenal District (19) FILE NO.: Z -5038-A NAME: Seven Acres Business Park - PCD (Application changed to POD as result of staff recommendation.) LOCATION: South side of State Highway 10 approximately 200 feet east of Bella Rosa Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: WILLIAM V. MATHIS WHITE-DATERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. #4 Valley Club Circle 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72201 227-5490 374-1666 AREA: 7.1 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 540 ft. ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Office/Warehouse and Retail PLANNING DISTRICT: I CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The property as presented is undeveloped and zoned R-2 within the Highway 10 Overlay District transition zone. The major problem in developing this site is that the majority of the property lies within the 100 year floodplain. Taylor Loop Creek lies on the south boundary of this PUD. The cost of earth fill and its proximity to Cantrell Road precludes consideration for residential home sites. The developer feels there is a need in this vicinity for a small amount of retail use and mixed office/showroom/warehouse development. The plan presented meets or exceeds the overlay district requirements for setback buffer and landscape. The plan is to subdivide the site into four lots with each lot taking access from the interior street. Only one access to Cantrell Road is planned. The retail and commercial use will be on Lot 1 which is the northwest corner of the site. A 13,200 square foot building with 60 parking spaces is planned. All other lots are to be used for office/showroom/warehouse with ample circulation and parking for each facility. Overall building, driveway and parking areas to land ratios are well within the acceptable limits. The two front buildings will be of the same architecture, with remaining buildings in the rear using the same design. 1