Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5038-C Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -5038-C NAME: Alltel (Seven Acres Business Park Lot #4) Revised POD LOCATION: #5 Seven Acres Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Alltel Mobile Dave Taylor Communications, Inc. Alltel Mobile Communications P. O. Box 2177 P.O. Box 2177 Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72203 AREA: 1.48 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: POD ALLOWED USES: Auto painting and body rebuilding shop; office; office -showroom/ warehouse. PROPOSED USE: A 150 foot tall cellular communications tower and a 12 foot by 28 foot equipment building. .i VARIANCES WAIVERS REQUESTED: A height variance is requested for the 150 foot tall monopole. A maximum height of 75 feet is allowed by ordinance. BACKGROUND• The Seven Acres Business Park POD was established by the Board of Directors by Ordinance No. 16,319, passed on December 15, 1992. On February 20, 1996, the Board of Directors passed an amended POD (Ordinance No. 17,118) which allowed for an auto painting and body rebuilding shop on Lot 4 of the Seven Acres Business Park development. A. PROPOSAL REQUEST: The applicant, Alltel, seeks to revise the approved plan to allow for the construction of a 150 foot tall cellular communications monopole tower on Lot 4 of the Seven Acres Business Park - POD site. The proposal also includes a 12 foot by 28 foot equipment building. FILE NO.: Z-5038-C(cont.) B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Lot 4, Seven Acres Business Park contains the Golden Collision Center building and associated parking area and drives. Vacant R-2 zoned property is located immediately south and east of the proposed tower site. Lot 3, Seven Acres Business Park is located immediately north and Lots 1 and 2 are located to the west, across Seven Acres Drive. There are single-family residences located further to the west and south along Bella Rosa Drive and Taylor Loop. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: There were no neighborhood associations to notify of the public hearing. Staff has received no public comment on this revised POD request. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: Grading and development permits are required for special hazard area. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT: Not transmitted to utilities. CATA• N/A F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: No Comments. Issues: • The tower will have a maximum height of 150 feet. • The tower will allow for co -locations at the 130 foot level and below at 20 foot increments. Planning Division: N/A G. ANALYSIS• The applicant is proposing to locate a 150 foot tall cellular communications monopole tower at the southwest corner of Lot 4, Seven Acres Business Park, along with a 12 foot by 28 foot equipment building. The proposed 150 foot tall tower will require a height variance (maximum height of 75 feet allowed by ordinance). 2 FILE *70.: . Z -5038-C (Cont. An eight foot opaque wood fence will be installed around the perimeter of the tower and equipment building. There are no parking issues associated with this request. The monopole will not -be lighted. The applicant has stated that co -locations would be possible on this monopole. These would be at the 130 foot level and below is 20 foot increments. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has no recommendation on this issue. Staff is unsure as to the visual impact of the proposed tower on the single-family residences to the west and south. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 5, 1997) Alissa Coffield and Carrick Inabnett were present, representing the application. Larry Jones presented the item to the Committee. Several issues were discussed, including the proposed tower height and co -location. After a brief discussion, the item was forwarded to the full Commission for consideration on June 26, 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 26, 1997) Larry Jones, of the Staff, introduced the item and stated that Mr. Lawson, the Planning Director, possibly would make a statement at this point. Mr. Lawson responding to a question from the applicant on Item A outlined a request as to whether or not the Commission would entertain the idea such as a straw pole or something to give the applicant a feeling for where the application stands at today's meeting. The response from the Commission being negative. The Chairman then asked if there were objectors in the audience. He stated that there were no cards presented in opposition. The*Chairman, Mr. Lichty, then asked if there were comments from the Commission. (On the tape it appears there were several conversations held between commissioners and between the applicant and none of which was legible on the tape. The conversations did not directly bear upon the physical presentation of the tower or the particular issue before the Commission.) A question was then posed of the applicant as to whether or not the tower proposed co -location. The response was yes the tower was constructed for as many as three. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Jacob Metzger representing himself as applicant for the proposal. He first asked the 3 FILE 1I0.-. Z -5038-C (Cont.) Chairman if there would be proposals for deferral placed before the Commission at this time. The response was no. Mr. Metzger then proceeded to offer comments on the application. He then proceeded to identify the location of the tower as being at #5 Seven Acres Drive off Highway 10 in west Little Rock. He stated that the proposed tower site is approximately 200 yards south of Highway 10. Mr. Metzger proceeded to identify the physical dimensions of the site and of the tower height. He then offered a reminder to the Commission that last fall Alltel had presented to the Commission in this immediate geographic area which was not received favorably. The Commission at that time suggested that Alltel search for a better site in a more commercial area of this part of the city. He identified that on this site behind the Golden Collision Center the ground elements will be screened by a six foot opaque wooden fence being the same type of screening fence that currently surrounds the collision center. Mr. Metzger then proceeded to described the immediate area of the proposed tower location. He stated that there was a significant floodplain abutting the property immediately to the south. The balance of the Seven Acres Business Park abutted on the west, Cantrell Road to the north and two large garden centers immediately to the east. He then proceeded to outline uses in the area. He also commented on the how Alltel had been cooperative with the neighbors with staff and all interested parties in this site location. He also pointed out that the notice to adjacent property owners that was provided by Alltel produced no opposition. At this time, there were no record objectors. Chairman Lichty then asked again if there were those in the audience who wanted to speak against this item. The response was negative. Mr. Larry Jones, of the Staff, stated that the staff had not offered a specific recommendation in this instance in as much as we were not provided with information relative to whether or not there would be negative impact by the erection of this tower and that the applicant had been asked to provide impact information on this project. Chairman Lichty pointed out that the Commission would be getting to that issue. He then moved the hearing process to the Commission's side of the hearing and open the floor for discussion. He recognized Commissioner Adcock. Commissioner Adcock proposed a question concerning the 75 foot height limitation that is in the ordinance. She pointed out that all of the tower issues that had come before the Commission were well in excess of that. She directed her question in the issue to the City Attorney as to why we are not doing something with the ordinance to accommodate the discrepancy between the allowed heights and the heights that are submitted for approval. Steven Giles, 4 FILE NO.: z -5038-C [Cont. of the City Attorney's Office, responded. He stated that the staff and the City Attorney's Office have been working to develop a draft of a ordinance guideline which will attempt to deal with the subject matter. --He stated that the ordinance draft will provide some of the modern standards in the ordinance and bring it up to date. He further stated that the City Attorney's Office and staff will be bringing this item for a public hearing. Jim Lawson inserted a comment at this point having to do with the 75 foot height limitation stating that in the past and up to current time even the height limit had served as a general guideline for the erection of towers. The Chairman recognized Commissioner Putnam. Commissioner Putnam offered a statement concerning the issue of variances as applied to the height of towers. He directed his comments to the City Attorney. Mr. Giles responded by saying that there was not a variance issue in those circumstances where it was a planned unit development but only in those instances where the property was appropriately zoned but the height of the zoning district prohibited the requested height. with that question resolved, the Chairman then stated that he had a question. The question being "what about the visual impact and what has the applicant done to offer a response." Specifically as to whether there is something the Commission can look at to get a feel for what is out there. The applicant responded by saying that they did not have specifics to respond to that. They have no photographs but do have a response. The applicant offered some generalized comments relative to the height of the tower and how it is constructed and how the various elements or features are mated. The applicant again restated his position and the conversation then moved off the sound system and is garbled or indecipherable. The Chairman then asked if there were further questions by the Commission. Absent a response he indicated the Chair was open to a motion. Commissioner Brandon offered a motion which stated "a motion that the Commission accept the application as filed." The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 5 L , 6' June 26,,1997' ITEM NO.: A Y�J i ff k;-�< MIPure FILE NO.: Z -5038-C NAME: Alltel (Seven Acres Business Park Lot #4) - Revised POD LOCATION: #5 Seven Acres Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Alltel Mobile Dave Taylor Communications, Inc. Alltel Mobile Communications P. O. Box 2177 P.O. Box 2177 Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72203 AREA: 1.48 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: POD ALLOWED USES: Auto painting and body rebuilding shop; office; office -showroom/ warehouse. PROPOSED USE: A 150 foot tall cellular communications tower and a 12 foot by 28 foot equipment building. VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A height variance is requested for the 150 foot tall monopole. A maximum height of 75 feet is allowed by ordinance. BACKGROUND: The Seven Acres Business Park POD was established by the Board of Directors by Ordinance No. 16,319, passed on December 15, 1992. On February 20, 1996, the Board of Directors passed an amended POD (Ordinance No. 17,118) which allowed for an auto painting and body rebuilding shop on Lot 4 of the Seven Acres Business Park development. A. 'PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant, Alltel, seeks to revise the approved plan to allow for the construction of a 150 foot tall cellular communications monopole tower on Lot 4 of the Seven Acres Business Park - POD site. The proposal also includes a 12 foot by 28 foot equipment building. June 26, 1997' SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5038--C B. ENLISTING CONDITIONS: Lot 4, Seven Acres Business Park contains the Golden Collision Center building and associated parking area and drives. Vacant R-2 zoned property is located immediately south and east of the proposed tower site. Lot 3, Seven Acres Business Park is located immediately north and Lots 1 and 2 are located to the west, across Seven Acres Drive. There are single-family residences located further to the west and south along Bella Rosa Drive and Taylor Loop. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: There were no neighborhood associations to notify of the public hearing. Staff has received no public comment on this revised POD request. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: Grading and development permits are required for special hazard area. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT: Not transmitted to utilities. CATA• N/A F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: No Comments. Issues: ■ The tower will have a maximum height of 150 feet. • The tower will allow for co -locations at the 130 foot level and below at 20 foot increments. Planning Division: N/A G. ANALYSIS• The applicant is proposing to locate a 150 foot tall cellular communications monopole tower at the southwest corner of Lot 4, Seven Acres Business Park, along with 2 June 26, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont.)FILE NO.: Z -5038-C a 12 foot by 28 foot equipment building. The proposed 150 foot tall tower will require a height variance (maximum height of 75 feet allowed by ordinance). An eight foot opaque wood fence will be installed around the perimeter of the tower and equipment building. There are no parking issues associated with this request. The monopole will not be lighted. The applicant has stated that co -locations would be possible on this monopole. These would be at the 130 foot level and below is 20 foot increments. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has no recommendation on unsure as to the visual impact the single-family residences to SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: this issue. Staff is of the proposed tower on the west and south. (JUNE 5, 1997) Alissa Coffield and Carrick Inabnett were present, representing the application. Larry Jones presented the item to the Committee. Several issues were discussed, including the proposed tower height and co -location. After a brief discussion, the item was forwarded to the full Commission for consideration on June 26, 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 26, 1997) Larry Jones, of the Staff, introduced the item and stated that Mr. Lawson, the Planning Director, possibly would make a statement at this point. Mr. Lawson responding to a question from the applicant on Item A outlined a request as to whether or not the Commission would entertain the idea such as a straw pole or something to give the applicant a feeling for where the application stands at today's meeting. The response from the Commission being negative. The Chairman then asked if there were objectors in the audience. He stated that there were no cards presented in opposition. The Chairman, Mr. Lichty, then asked if there were comments from the Commission. (On the tape it appears there were several conversations held between commissioners and between the applicant and none of which was legible on the tape. The conversations 3 1' June 26, 1997 f , SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: z -5038-C did not directly bear upon the physical presentation of the tower or the particular issue before the Commission.) A question was then posed of the applicant as to whether or not the tower proposed co -location. The response was yes the tower was constructed for as many as three. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Jacob Metzger representing himself as applicant for the proposal. He first asked the Chairman if there would be proposals for deferral placed before the Commission at this time. The response was no. Mr. Metzger then proceeded to offer comments on the application. He then proceeded to identify the location of the tower as being at #5 Seven Acres Drive off Highway 10 in west Little Rock. He stated that the proposed tower site is approximately 200 yards south of Highway 10. Mr. Metzger proceeded to identify the physical dimensions of the site and of the tower height. He then offered a reminder to the Commission that last fall Alltel had presented to the Commission in this immediate geographic area which was not received favorably. The Commission at that time suggested that Alltel search for a better site in a more commercial area of this part of the city. He identified that on this site behind the Golden Collision Center the ground elements will be screened by a six foot opaque wooden fence being the same type of screening fence that currently surrounds the collision center. Mr. Metzger then proceeded to described the immediate area of the proposed tower location. He stated that there was a significant floodplain abutting the property immediately to the south. The balance of the Seven Acres Business Park abutted on the west, Cantrell Road to the north and two large garden centers immediately to the east. He then proceeded to outline uses in the area. He also commented on the -how Alltel had been cooperative with the neighbors with staff and all interested parties in this site location. He also pointed out that the notice to adjacent property owners that was provided by Alltel produced no opposition. At this time, there were no record objectors. Chairman Lichty then asked again if there were those in the audience who wanted to speak against this item. The response was negative. Mr. Larry Jones, of the Staff, stated that the staff had not offered a specific recommendation in this instance in as much as we were not provided with information relative to whether or not there would be negative impact by the erection of this tower and that the applicant had been asked to provide impact information on this project. 4 June 26, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5038-C Chairman Lichty pointed out that the Commission would be getting to that issue. He then moved the hearing process to the Commission's side of the hearing and open the floor for discussion. He recognized Commissioner Adcock. Commissioner Adcock proposed a question concerning the 75 foot height limitation that is in the ordinance. She pointed out that all of the tower issues that had come before the Commission were well in excess of that. She directed her question in the issue to the City Attorney as to why we are not doing something with the ordinance to accommodate the discrepancy between the allowed heights and the heights that are submitted for approval. Steven Giles, of the City Attorney's Office, responded. He stated that the staff and the City Attorney's Office have been working to develop a draft of a ordinance guideline which will attempt to deal with the subject matter. He stated that the ordinance draft will provide some of the modern standards in the ordinance and bring it up to date. He further stated that the City Attorney's Office and staff will be bringing this item for a public hearing. Jim Lawson inserted a comment at this point having to do with the 75 foot height limitation stating that in the past and up to current time even the height limit had served as a general guideline for the erection of towers. The Chairman recognized Commissioner Putnam. Commissioner Putnam offered a statement concerning the issue of variances as applied to the height of towers. He directed his comments to the City Attorney. Mr. Giles responded by saying that there was not a variance issue in those circumstances where it was a planned unit development but only in those instances where the property was appropriately zoned but the height of the zoning district prohibited the requested height. with that question resolved, the Chairman then stated that he had a question. The question being "what about the visual impact and what has the applicant done to offer a response." Specifically as to whether there is something the Commission can look at to get a feel for what is out there. The applicant responded by saying that they did not have specifics to respond to that. They have no photographs but do have a response. The applicant offered some generalized comments relative to the height of the tower and how it is constructed and how the various elements or features are mated. The applicant again restated his conversation then moved off the or indecipherable. The Chairman 5 position and the sound system and is garbled then asked if there were r 1 June 26, '1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5038-C further questions by the Commission. Absent a response he indicated the Chair was open to a motion. Commissioner Brandon offered a motion which stated "a motion that the Commission accept the application as filed." The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 6 I January `Z10 , 19 9 6 ITEM F-2 FILE N NY -r,0 $-B NAME: SEVEN ACRES BUSINESS PARK -- 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 L T : 4 FT_ NEW STREET: 500 ZONING: POD PZgPQSED ES: Auto painting and body rebuilding shop; office; office-showroom/warehouse PLANNING DI TRI T• 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES RE QESTED: None STAFF UPDATE• 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" Erom 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 January 10, 1996 aDIVI I ITEM F-2 (Continued) FILE Na.: Z- 8-B 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/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for an Amended Planned Office Development. 2 January �0, 1996 5UBDIVISIQ g,M -2 n in FILE Z- -B B. EXISTING NDITION : The site is being developed; Seven Acres Dr., is under construction. No building development, at this time, had 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. ENGINEER_ING_.UTILITY COMMENT : 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 ARKLA 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 K. January` 30, 1996 IT F-2 (Continued) FILE Z- -B 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 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"I 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. 4 January ?. 0 , 1996 BDIVI I ITEM NO.: F-2 -Continued) FILE NO.: Z- 038-B F. .TAFF RECOMMENDAT2ON,9: 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. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. Jeff Hathaway, with the Hathaway Group, representing the applicant, and Mr. Joe White, with White -paters & 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 5 janu.ary.30, 1995 SUBDIVISI ITEM O.: F-2 n in FILE NO.: Z-5 38-B 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 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 2 January 3.0, 1995 BDIVr IO ITEM N F-2 n in d FILE N Z-50 8-B 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. 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 7 January 30,1996 SgPDIVISIO ITEM F- (Continued) FILE Z- -B 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 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. 8 January Z. 1996 SpBDIV1,9IO ITEM N F-2 (Continued) TLE Kn 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. 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. 9 January 00, 1 996 , HD VI 2 IT F-2 n n _FILE Z-5038-11 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. 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 /DESIGN " : 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. 10 January 3D, 1996 SOBDIVISIQN ITEM N F-2 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-50 8-B 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 "ANALYSTS": 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 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. PLANPiING 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 Fovember TmFM NO. 3, 1992 NAME: Seven Acres Business Park - PCD (Application changed to POD as result of staff recommendation.) 200 feet LOCA IQN South side of State Highway 10 approximately east of Bella Rosa Dr�,ve ENG : DEVELOPER' INC. . WHITE-DATERSANSSOCIATES, WILLIAM V. MATHIS 401 Victory street 72201 #4 Valley Club Circle Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 72212 374-1666 227-5490 p,R_F-A. 7.1 acres NUMBER OF LOTS 20�: R-2 PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT' 42.06 Vp,RIANCES RE UESTED: None 4 FT. NEW STREET: 540 ft. Office/Warehouse and Retail STATEMENT OF PROF05AL: o ert as presented is undeveloped and zThedm jorwproblemithin he Thew property District transition zone' property Highway 10 overlay ❑rity of the in developing this site is that the maTaylor Loop Creek lies lies within the 100 year floodplain. of this PUD. The cost of earth fill and on the south boundary recludes consideration for its proximity to Cantrell Road p er feels there is a need in The develop this vicinity for a small amountof retail use and mixed residential home sites. Office/showroom/warehouse develo p district The plan Presented meets or exceeds the overlay The plan is to requirements for teeintokfourflotser nwithneach lot taking access from subdivide the Only one access to Cantrell Road is planned. the interior street. with A 13 200 square foot building for e The retail and commercial,te� will be on Lot 1 which �s used northwest corner of the sl eused for e 60 parking spaces is planned. AllltCerculationeand parking office/showroom/warehouse with amplecirculation and parking areas to each facility• Overall building, table limits. The two front land ratios are well within the acceP buildings will be of the same architectuign,with remaining buildings in the rear using the same 1 ¢ember 3, 1992 ITEM NO.: 4(Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5038-A A. PROPOSALLREQUEST: 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 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. 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. OAI 5. r 3, 1992 4 Cont. FILE NO.: 3-50387A Explain the separation on Lot 4 and the two buildings. Does this provide for staging? 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 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 RECQMMENDATIONS: 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 3, 1992 ITEM -NO. 4 Cont. FILE NO.: �-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 r�node no,iand was the Highway 10 plan. Jim Lawson responded by stating not" - "that this was located in a transition zone which provides for off ice 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 I. 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 T Yr- 3 Qy mber 3,, 1992 . ITEMwND.• 4 Cont. FILE Nn.: Z-503 8-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 4,040 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 Sella 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 1o% 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 25%. 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. 9 member 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. IS, 1992 'IMND.: 4 Cont. FILE ND.: �-5438-A TE The Chairman then stated h thoroughly developed. He Commission then voted on a the modifications include presentation made here to vote o£ 9 ayes, 1 nay and e felt th asked fo motion d in the day. The 1 absent. 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 7 en e ith a