Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5038-B Staff AnalysisFILE NO.• ;-5018-B DAME: SEVEN ACRES BUSINESS PARR -- AMENDED LONG -FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the south side of Cantrell Road, approximately 0.3 mile east of west Taylor Loop Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Jeff Hathaway, Agent Joe White THE HATHAWAY GROUP WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 100 Morgan Keegan Dr., Suite 120 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72201 663-5400 374-1666 AREA: 7.0821 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 500 ZONING: POD PROPQSED USES: Auto painting and body rebuilding shop; office; office-showroom/warehouse PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STAFF UP ATE: At the December 12, 1995 Planning Commission, the applicant was offered the opportunity to have a revised site plan, changing the location of the proposed development from Lot 2 to Lot 4 of the Seven Acres Business Park, heard as a deferred item on the January 30, 1996 Commission agenda. This opportunity was conditioned on the notification of all property owners within 200 feet of the entire Seven Acres Business Park POD being accomplished, not just persons owning property within 200 feet of the individual lot. The required notification has been accomplished, and a revised site plan was submitted which moves the proposed "collision center from the southwest corner of the development to the southeast corner, as suggested by staff and various Commissioners. BACKGROUND The Seven Acres Business Park was established by the Board of Directors by Ordinance No. 16,319, passed on December 15, 1992. This followed a recommendation of approval by the Planing FILE_in ed Commission on November 3, 1992. The approved POD restricts commercial uses (explained as "over-the-counter sales") to only Lot 1, and provided that the commercial area of the building on Lot 1 would be limited to 4,000 square feet. All other buildings would be limited to "office-showroom/warehouse uses, and any area of the building on Lot 1 in excess of the 4,000 square feet would be limited to office uses. The building on Lot 1 was shown as 60 foot deep by 220 foot long; on Lot 2 the building was to be 72 foot deep by 190 foot long; on Lot 3 the building was to be 72 foot deep by 120 foot long. Two buildings were shown on Lot 4, one 92 feet deep by 90 feet long; the other a total of 62 feet deep by 100 feet long. Each of these buildings on Lots 2 through 4 were to be used for office- showroom/warehousing. An undisturbed buffer along the west property line, 80 feet wide at the Lot 1 parking area, and 50 feet wide along the reminder of Lot 1 and along the Lot 2 property line, is shown on the approved site plan. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes an amended planned office development to change the use mix of the approved POD from limited "over-the- counter sales" /commercial, plus office and office -showroom/ warehousing to substitute an auto painting and body rebuilding shop for the office-showroom/warehousing use approved for Lot 2. Golden Collision Center is proposed to occupy a 9,238 square foot building (with overall dimensions of 86 feet deep by 125 feet long) in place of the 72 foot deep by 190 foot long (13,680 square foot) office-showroom/warehouse use which is approved for the lot. In lieu of the building being 85 feet off the west property line, the proposed building is to be 122 feet of the west property line. The undisturbed buffer, however, is omitted from Lot 2, and a 15 foot wide landscape buffer is substituted. A opaque privacy fence is proposed to be erected along the east edge of the landscape buffer, and along the south property line. The applicant requests approval of a project sign at the corner of Cantrell Rd. and Seven Acres Dr. which is to advertise the various businesses occupying the park. Conformance with the Highway 10 Overlay District sign restrictions is proposed for the sign. A. PROPOSAL RE VEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Hoard of Directors is requested for an Amended Planned Office Development. H. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is being developed; Seven Acres Dr., is under construction. No building development, at this time, had �A FILE N Z- -B n in d been commenced. The site is nearly level, with only a six foot grade differential within the site. There is a floodway along the south property line which has been dedicated to the City. The existing zoning of the site is POD. All surrounding areas are zoned R-2. Houses back up to the site off Bella Rosa Dr. C. ENGINEERINGIIITILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that permits for construction of the interior street have already been approved. Public Works has no other comments. Little Rock Water Works has no comments. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that any revisions to the site must be compatible with the existing sewer main extension which has been accepted by the Utility. Arkansas Power and Light Co. notes that they will need a 15 foot easement around the entire perimeter of the site. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal, with the stipulation that ARKLA has no objection to the layout, as long as no ARxLA facilities are disturbed. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. comments that they need an easement along the east and the west property lines. The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal. D. ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: The Planning staff comments that the site is located in the River Mountain District, and that the adopted Lane use Plan recommends "Mixed Office -Commercial". The proposal is a modification of an existing mixed use office, commercial, and office-showroom/warehouse planned development, and the proposal does not appreciably change the character of the mixed use development. No Plan issue, then, is involved. The project narrative addresses the use for Lot 2: the Golden Collision Center. Since this particular tenant is named, and no convertibility to other similar or alternative uses is requested, the Golden Collision Center, if approved, will be the only tenant which will be permitted without amending the POD. The building shown on Lot 1 retains, as was shown on the approved site plan, but which is not in conformance with the approved POD, the size of the commercial/"over-the-counter 3 FILE- -B C n inued sales" area to be 4,950 square feet. The approved POD limited this area to 4,000 square feet. The amended POD does not modify this approved limitation. The Site Plan Review Specialist notes that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet the Ordinance requirements, with the exception of a portion of the eastern landscape buffer which drops below the 25 foot minimum required buffer per the Highway 10 Overlay District Ordinance. E. ANALYSIS• There are only minor deficiencies in the submittal information and exhibits, and these can be easily remedied. There are, however, issues which need to be resolved: 1) whether convertibility of the use approved for Lot 2 is desired; 2) the change from a 50 foot undisturbed buffer to a 15 foot landscape strip along the west property line abutting the residences which back up to the site, especially when a 25 foot minimum buffer is required; and 3) whether a collision repair center, in this close proximity to residential uses is acceptable. The applicant needs to address the convertibility issue. The change in the undisturbed buffer from 50 feet to a landscape buffer of 15 feet is a major change in the buffering of the planned development site from the residences which abut the site to the west. An auto painting and body rebuilding shop is listed as a C-4 use. The technology utilized by a "collision repair center", however, is far removed from the out-of-date means used in the past to paint and repair automobiles, and the technology described by the applicant makes the use compatible with an office-showroom/warehouse use allowed in the POD. The proximity of automobiles to the residential neighborhood, however, is a concern, and the noise from the collision repair center, in so close a proximity to the residences, is of concern. The use would be better suited on one of the lots along the east boundary of the POD site, instead of on a lot which abuts residences. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the amended POD use, as presented, but can support the application if the use is placed on one of the two eastern lots, and the undisturbed buffer is left in tact', as'originally approved. 4 FILE O.: Z- -S on in d SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. Jeff Hathaway, with the Hathaway Group, representing the applicant, and Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, were present. Staff outlined the character of the proposed amended planned development, and presented the site plan. The Committee reviewed the discussion outline and discussed the concerns noted in the outline with Mr. Hathaway and Mr. White. Mr. Bob Brown, the Site Plan Review Specialist, noted the deficiencies in the eastern buffer, pointing out that 25 feet is the required minimum buffer width. Mr. White indicated that any needed changes would be addressed, and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff presented the requested planned development, but recommended denial of the proposed amended POD. Staff explained that the body shop, in the location proposed, would abut residences which back up to the property on the west, and that the site plan omits the 50 foot buffer which was approved in the original POD site plan. Staff noted that staff can support the use if the body shop is moved to the east side of Seven Acres Dr. Staff reported that several calls and two letters had been received from abutting residential homeowners who oppose the proposed use and the encroachment into the buffer area. Staff reported that no Land Use Plan amendment is required, should the Commission recommend approval of the amended POD. Mr. Jeff Hathaway, representing the applicant, and Mr. Larry Golden, the applicant, were present. Mr. Hathaway presented the applicant's request, noting that the applicant, Mr. Golden, had sought and received Commission approval for the location of his collision repair facility off I-630 in the Freeway Business Park, but that the Board of Directors had denied the request. He said that Mr. Golden had made an offer on a lot in the Seven Acres Business Park, and was proposing to locate his "state of the art" collision repair facility at this new location. Mr. Golden explained the differences in what people envision as a typical "body shop" and a collision center, such as he proposes. He said that, due to vehicles being so dramatically different from those of just a few years ago. He said that between plastic replacement parts and on -board computers, collision repair is dramatically different from a few years ago, and technology will k, FILE No.; Z- -B Continued continue to bring about more changes. A "body shop" cannot fix this type vehicle. He addressed the means of painting vehicles; he reported that the vehicle is driven into the enclosed booth, it is sealed inside the booth, the air is filtered both entering and exiting the booth, and the finish is heat or micro -wave baked onto the body. He presented an architectural rendering of the building, saying that it will, for all practical purposes, look like any other office -warehouse building which would be developed on the site. He said that the proposed building has only overhead doors at each end, not at each repair bay, and that, with this design, neighbors will not hear noises from or see repair work being done. He pointed out that the original POD required the building on Lot 2 to be set at 85 feet off the west property line; the current site proposes a building set at 118 feet off the west property line. He explained that the original POD required a 50 foot undisturbed buffer along the west property line. He said that there are no trees in this area, and that, instead of the 50 foot buffer, which, with no trees would not screen the site, he was proposing to furnish a 15 foot landscaped strip along the west property line, and place an 8 foot high "good neighbor" fence on his side of the landscaping so that the landscaping is on the neighbors' side of the fence. Commissioner Putnam recalled that the Parker Cadillac Body Shop is a very similar facility, and that it was approved for and functions well in close proximity to a residential neighborhood. It is on Rainwood Dr., setting across the street from condominiums, he said, and, he said, that in speaking with residents, he has been told that the Parker facility is a good neighbor; that they would rather have this facility than an office building or some commercial use. He urged the Bella Rosa residents to visit the Parker facility to assuage their concerns. Ms. Ruth Bell, speaking for the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, admitting that Mr. Golden's facility was "state-of-the- art", said that adequate buffers needed to be maintained between residential and non-residential uses. Mr. Ronald Strobel, saying that his home backed up to the proposed body shop site, spoke in opposition to the request. He pointed out that the topography drops significantly from west to east, and that, for a fence to screen the body shop from his home of from Bella Rosa Dr., would have to be substantially higher than 8 feet. Commissioner Adcock asked staff for clarification on the types of uses which are approved for the existing POD. Staff related that the "office -warehouse" classification permits such activities as contractor's office, service and supplier's offices, repair company offices, etc.; those types of activities which require an office as well as a materials or equipment storage facility in conjunction with the office use. 6 FILE N Z- -H n inu d Commissioner Adcock asked if, one, whether this is the type of warehousing use, similar to those off Landers Rd. in North Little Rock, with rows and rows of overhead doors, and two, whether the office -warehouse use were all that is currently approved for the POD. Staff replied in the affirmative. Ms. Frieda vogler, identifying herself as owning the lot at the corner of Bella Rosa and Cantrell Rd., reported that she had not been notified of the Commission hearing, either for the current hearing or for the previous hearing when the POD was approved. She said that she was neither for or against the POD, but questioned the sense of commercial rezoning along Cantrell Rd., intermixed with established residential uses. Commissioner McCarthy urged the Bella Rosa neighbors to visit various office -warehouse facilities, as well as the Parker Cadillac repair facility, to see that the collision repair facility would be less intrusive than the typical office - warehouse facility. Director of Neighborhoods and Planning Jim Lawson stated that, when the applicant met with staff with the proposal, staff had felt that, since the POD permitted limited retail use on the site, that the collision repair facility could be substituted for the permitted retail use. He said that staff would not support the collision repair facility in addition to the retail use of the site; that, if both were allowed, the character of the POD would be changed. Mr. Bob Brown, Site Review Specialist, reported that the Highway 10 Overlay requirement would require an average minimum buffer around the perimeter of the site of 25 feet, and that, in such a situation as the subject property, the buffer would be a minimum of 25 feet; that the Ordinance would require that, where trees and plantings are not already present, trees and plantings would be required to be installed; that a sprinkler system for watering the plants is required; and that a fence would be required along the west property line. Commissioner Hawn urged the applicant to consider the alternative location of the southeast lot. Mr. Golden responded that he had the subject lot under contract; that he felt that he had a good project; that the landscaping concerns note by Bob Brown could be remedied, and that he needed to pursue the present application through the Commission hearing. Interim Chairperson Ball inquired of the applicant if he would rather seek a deferral of further consideration of the application, in order for him to contact the seller regarding a 7 FILE NO.: Z-5038-8.__( Qntinuea possible relocation of the site to the southeast lot, or whether he would like to seek a vote by the Commission on the current proposal. Commissioner Rahman asked for clarification on the convertibility of the use of the site. Mr. Golden responded that he would want the right to sell the business and to retain the name for himself and his family, but that a similar collision center, with all the approved restrictions, is requested to be able to occupy the premises. Mr. Hathaway asked for clarification on whether, if a deferral were granted in order to negotiate a contract on another lot within the Seven Acres Business Park, the amended request could be heard at the next Commission meting instead of having to wait for a new docket closing date. Staff responded that it would depend on whether all persons within 200 feet of the entire site were notified, or whether persons within 200 feet of the lot were notified. Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson stated that if all persons within 200 feet of the entire POD site were notified of the hearing, the item would, at the request of the applicant, be placed on the January 30, 1996 Commission hearing as a deferred item. If, on the other hand, notification did not include all property owners within 200 feet of the entire Seven Acres Business park, then a new application will need to be filed for a different lot within the site to be considered. Commissioner Putnam recommended that, if persons within 200 feet of the entire site had not been previously notified, that the applicant be permitted to simply send out additional notices notifying property owners of the January 30th. meeting. Interim Chairperson Ball confirmed to Mr. Hathaway that the understanding concerning hearing the item as a deferred item was based on the notification procedure being amended to include all persons within 200 feet of the entire site, if this had not already been done. Commissioner Brandon stated that she thought the proposal was a good idea, and that the applicant may not be able to justify moving his proposed development to another lot within the Seven Acres Business Park. Commissioner Rahman suggested that the applicant seek a deferral, and, during the deferral, attempt to meet with neighbors and educate them on the character of his proposed development. He said that he felt the proposal was a good idea, and that it was probably a good use for the lot. 8 FILE NO_: Z- -B ntinu Deputy City Attorney advised that, if the applicant wanted to pursue his current application to a vote, he could still submit an application on another lot within the Seven Acres Business Center on the next filing date, and could still have a revised request heard at the January 30, 1996 Commission hearing. Commissioner Chachere asked Mr. Golden to confirm that the 25 foot landscaping buffer, with required planning and the sprinkler system, would be provided. Mr. Golden responded that he would meet all requirements, and that he wished to pursue his current application to a vote. Interim Chairperson Ball called the question on the approval of Mr. Golden's proposal, and a recommendation of approval failed with the vote of 4 ayes, 6 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. REVISED "STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL": In lieu of a 9,238 square foot building on Lot 2, the applicant proposes a 10,000 square foot building on Lot 4. Provision for expansion of the building to the south, to add 2,700 square feet of floor area, is indicated. Paved drives and parking areas off Seven Acres Dr. is to be provided. The area to the north, east, and south of the building, where vehicles being repaired will be stored, will be surrounded with an opaque fence. Landscape buffers of 6 feet along the north property line (both abutting Lot 3 in the Seven Acres Business Park, and at the offset in the property line abutting the single family zoned tract to the northeast) are proposed. Along the .east property line, a 15 foot landscape buffer is proposed. In conjunction with approval of the requested development site plan, a modification in the size of Lot 3 is requested. The modification involves offsetting the south property line of Lot 3 18 feet to the south. This will permit a change in the parking lot for Lot 3, making it 55 feet in lieu of 40 feet as shown on the approved POD site plan. No other changes to the approved POD site plan are requested, other than the approval of a project sign, as requested in the December 12, 1995 proposal. A-1. REVISED "PROPOSAL RE VEST": Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for an Amended Planned Office Development. B-1. REVISED "EXISTING CONDITIONS": Lot 4 is nearly level, with only a 2 foot grade differential across it. 9 FILE N Z- 0 -B (Continued) Property to the south and east is zoned R-2. To the south, however, is a substantial floodway, with heavy trees and undergrowth in the area south of the floodway. To the east is former pasture land and wooded areas. There is a single- family home located approximately 100 feet to the north of the offset in the east property line. C-1. REVISED "ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS": There are no revised Engineering or Utility comments. D-1. REVISED "ISSUES/LEGAL /TECHNICAL/DES IGN " : The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist notes: The Highway 10 Overlay District requires an average landscape buffer along the perimeters of a development of 25 feet in width. A portion of the proposed northern (at the offset in the property line) and eastern landscape buffers drop to 6 feet and 15 feet respectively. Since these areas are adjacent to residentially zoned property, it is recommended that these landscape buffers not drop below a width of 17 feet, which is two-thirds of the full requirement. The proposed 6 foot high opaque fence must be constructed of wood, with the face side directed outward. In addition to the screening fence, trees and shrubs will be required within the landscape buffers. Curb and gutter, or other approved border, will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. A sprinkler system will be required to water landscaped areas. Issues raised in the staff report concerning retail uses permitted in Lot 1 are reaffirmed. E-1. REVISED "ANALYSIS": The "collision center", as explained by the applicant, is very similar in type of operation as an office or office warehouse use. Since the operation is in keeping with the type of operation of the Parker Cadillac Body Shop (which was approved and is now in operation on Rainwood Dr., and which lies across the street from residential uses), the 10 FILE N Z- -B n in d proposed use is compatible with the "business office" character of the POD. F-1. REVISED STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the amended POD, subject to conformance with all applicable Public Works, Utility, and Neighborhoods and Planning requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996) Staff reported that the applicant had relocated the proposed collision center to the southeast corner of the tract, in lieu of at the southwest corner, as discussed at the December 12th. Commission meeting. Staff noted that this new location does not abut residences and that it addresses the concerns expressed by residents who live on Bella Rosa and whose homes back up to the Seven Acres Business Park. Staff recommends approval of the amended POD plan, and recommended approval of a variance from the Highway 10 Land Use buffer requirement of 25 feet to permit a 17 foot setback along the east and north property lines of Lot 4. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for Approval, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. 11