Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5105 Staff Analysis1. Meeting Date: February 7, 1989 2. Case Na.: Z-5105 3. Reau.e.st: Reclassify from current "O-3" Office .. District to "PCD" Short -form. 4. Location: Southeast corner of Hinson Road at Hinson Loop Road. 5. Owner/_Appl_icant: Flake and Company by Pat Morrison. 6. Existing_Sta_tus: Vacant land 7. Pro -posed -Use: Development as a mixed use shopping and office complex. 8. Staff Recommendation: Denial of the application as being fincompa.ffb'le with the Adopted Neighborhood Land Use Plan. 9. PIanning._Commission Recommendation: Approval of the "PCD" with conditions. 10. Recommendation Forwarded With: 6 ayes, 3 noes, 2 absent. 11. Objectors: There were several persons in attendance expressing various concerns but none offering specific objection to the project in its entirety. January 3, 1989 Item No. C NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Flake and Company P. O. Box 990 Little Rock, AR 72209 Phone: 376-8005 AREA: 2.69 acres ZONING: PROPOSED USE: A. Praposal/Request Hinson Corner "Short -form" PCD (Z-5105) Southeast corner of Hinson and Hinson Loop Roads ENGINEER: Summerlin Associates, Inc. 1609 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 376-1323 NO. OF LOTS 2 FT. OF NEW ST. 0 ............. . .......... PCD Office/Limited retail 1. For PCD approval of a 2.69 acre site for use as an office and retail development. 2. That the two tracts involved in the development be kept separate and be coordinated through cross - easements and points of ingress and egress. This is to: (a) permit the future sale of either tract allowing for economic flexibility; (b) to maintain the office environment on Hinson Road, while upgrading development along Hinson Loop Road, utilizing a mixture of office -retail uses; and (c) allowing for a two-phase development of the site. 3. Phasing: (a.) Plans for Phase I include a combination office/retail center emphasizing a strong French traditional architectural design. The "L" shaped structure will consist of 21,400 square feet with bays varying in size from 1,000 to 1,900 square feet. Construction materials will consist of metal stud framing, stucco -drywall with sloped standing seamed metal roofs, French style entry doors and windows. e January 3, 1989 Item No.(_Conti.nued.)_ There will be special emphasis placed on the pedestrian areas, walkways, entrances and landscaping of a very high quality and design (colored canvas awnings, textured and patterned walks, traditional lantern style pole lighting, dense groundcover and landscaping). (b.) Phase II will encompass the smaller Hinson Road tract as a single office building development. Architectural design would be coordinated and compliment the Phase I design. 4. Land Use Uses have been extracted from a combination of office classifications (0-1 through 0-3) and commercial classification (C-1 through C-3). The applicant is requesting 60 percent retail to 40 percent office usage. 5. Developmental Time -frame The project will be constructed within the time- frame designated in the Ordinance. B. Development Statistics 1. Site. Phase 1 ............ 84,876 square feet/1.95 acres Phase II.......... 32,292 square feet/0.74 acres Total........ 117,128 square feet/2.69 acres 2. Building area: Phase 1 ............ 21,400 square feet Phase II.......... .7,.150 square feet Total ........ .28,550 square feet January 3, 1989 Item No. C (Continued.) 3. P.a.r_k i ng : Phase I ................86 cars (4 handicapped) (1 per 248 sq. ft.) Phase II .............. 44 cars (2 handicapped) (1 per 163 sq. ft.) Total ............ 130 cars (6 handicapped) (1 per 220 sq. ft.) 4. Building Coyerage: Phase 1 ................25 percent Phase 11 ...............22 percent Total ............. 24 percent 5. Open Space: Phase I .................0.45 acres .... 23 percent Phase 11................0.14 acres .... 19 percent Total ..... .........0.59 acres .... 22 percent 6. Usage: 60 percent retail..... 17,130 square feet 40 percent office..... 11,420 square feet C. Engineering Comments The right-of-way and improvements on Hinson Loop Road should be to Master Street Plan collector standards. See also additional comments on this tract issued to Richard Wood on August 26, 1988. Jerry Gardner of the Public Works Department offered an amendment, the amendment to state that if this development receives final plat and/or plan approval for building permit prior to the issuance of contracts for the boundary street improvements as public projects, then a in -lieu contribution will be necessary. January 3, 1989 Item No. C (Continued) D. Issues/Legal/Technii.:cal..:Design 1. Proposed land use and percentage of retail development. 2. Additional buffering to shield residences to the north. 3. Discussion of Engineering Comments and amount of curb cuts on Hinson Road. E. Analysis This submission includes a request for a commercial office development with a mix of 60 percent retail and 40 percent office. It is on property that was previously considered for a commercial shopping center. Staff has been against commercial development on this property in the past; it is now opposed to the percentage of the proposed amount to be developed as commercial use. Staff recommends that only 35 percent be developed as retail. Even though the plan itself is very well designed, the amount of commercial use creates a precedent for extensive commercial development west of Rodney Parham and is contrary to the approved Land Use Plan. This could only serve to adversely affect the neighboring residential area to the north. Past actions by the City Board of Directors have discouraged commercial uses west of Green Mountain Drive. Staff recommends a 25 foot front buffer on both streets. A cross-section of the smaller building is requested. The applicant has submitted a letter stating adherence to all of Engineering's comments except one. This concerns the applicant's feeling that the three curb cuts along Hinson Loop are not excessive considering the following: 1. Excessive frontage on Hinson Loop Road (427 feet); 2. The developers agreement to improve and widen Hinson Loop Road as discussed; 3. Changing the service entrance from a two-way to a one-way access; 4. Two shared access points for Phase I and II; and 5. Orderly flow of traffic within the development which allows for smoother access to and from Hinson and Hinson Loop Roads. January 3, 1989 Item No. C (Continued} ...........I .............. F. Staff Recommendation .... .......... Denial as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: ......................... .. ............... . Staff explained that the Land Use Plan designated office use for this site. Objections were also stated to the proposed amount of retail'to be built since Staff was concerned about retail west of Rodney Parham due to adverse impacts on traffic and fear of setting a precedence in the area. The guideline usually employed is ten percent (10%) commercial in some office zones and Staff does not desire to go beyond that figure. There was some discussion of the 40 foot buffer required along Hinson Road and the need to eliminate one of the curb cuts due to the Ordinance requirement of one per every 300 feet. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) A motion for deferral, as requested by the Applicant, was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (December 22, 1988) The applicant was not present. There were no new issues offered. Mr. Gardner of the Public Works Department offered comments to the effect that the neighbors on the north side of Hinson Road had concerns about the alignment of the driveway onto Hinson and an existing street. A brief discussion was held between Staff members and the Committee concerning the design of the stacking spaces for the drive- through lanes of the financial institution. The revised plan as refiled indicated a single driveway onto Hinson Loop Road to serve the immediate area of the drive-through facility. This appeared to offer some conflict with the ability of cars maneuvering through that area. Jerry Gardner of the Public Works Department offered comments to the effect that the applicant had been offered resolution of the design conflicts but that the City did not have a specific demand that they change the design. There being no further conversation on the subject, the matter is forwarded on to the full Commission. 1: January 3, 1989 Item N o . C Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 3, 1989) Richard Wood of the Planning Staff presented the application and offered the Staff recommendation. Mr. Gary Greeson then offered an overview of the neighborhood and the effects of this proposal on adjacent properties. Mr. Pat Morrison, the applicant, was present. Mr. Morrison presented the application offering the amendments that had been made. He discussed the buffering effects upon adjacent properties. He indicated that the proposal is drafted as a mixed-use project with no objectionable uses. Mr. Morrison read from the text of the ordinance the development intent of the PCD process. He discussed the mix of uses in the adjacent neighborhood and the appropriateness of this PCD on this site. He said that he felt that the neighborhood supported the mix of use in this proposal and the concept. He commented on the traffic generation being no greater than an office use on this property of multi -floors. Mr. Morrison pointed out that neighborhood residents on the north had indicated that they did not like access on to Hinson Road due to possible conflict with an intersection into their subdivision. He further expressed his feelings on the relationship of this proposal to the Adopted Neighborhood Plan. His thoughts were that this proposal was compatible and, in fact, overrides the plan and is appropriate to the site. Commissioner Nicholson then questioned Mr. Morrison as to the appropriateness of the use mix of 60/40, 70/30, etc. Mr. Morrison expressed the thought that 60/40 mix was a minimum in order to make this project work. Commissioner Collins then questioned Mr. Morrison concerning a letter he had mentioned from the neighbors with a response on this project. Mr. Morrison indicated that he did not wish to present the letter inasmuch as it had not been signed by the neighborhood and further indicated that the project apparently did not meet all of their needs, especially with respect to access on to Hinson Road. Commissioner Schlereth then introduced questions concerning the mix by building and the potential for the mix not meeting the 60/40 in the primary building on Phase I. Mr. Morrison outlined the uses per building and indicated that there would be less than 40% office in that structure. Further discussion of the matter between Gary Greeson and several Commissioners and Mr. Morrison reflect that somewhat over 20% of the building in Phase I would consist of office. January 3, 1989 Item No. C (Contin.ued) Commissioner Oleson then asked Mr. Morrison about the status of the single family property on the tract to the east. Mr. Morrison reported that attempts had been made to acquire the property but that the current owner would probably give this property to her church. Commissioner Nicholson then asked that Mr. Morrison identify the uses in the area adjacent to this proposal. Mr. Morrison identified the area as being one of transitional uses. He identified Foxrun Apartments lying generally on the east and south, single family uses in Pleasant Valley to the north, some vacant properties immediately to the west and several nonconforming or commercial zoned properties to the southwest. He specifically pointed out the existing PCD project on the west side of Hinson Loop Road. The question of objection and whether there were objectors in attendance was addressed. There were several persons present; no names were offered for the record. Mr. Jerry Gardner of the Public Works Department then addressed the site plan as amended. He discussed the Master Street Plan requirements as to Hinson Road and Hinson Loop Road. He also addressed the circulation within the drive-in facility for the proposed financial institution. Mr. Morrison then stated that the office use on the Hinson frontage of the property would not necessarily be a bank. He stated it could be some other office activity. Commissioner Perkins and Mr. Gardner discussed the right-of- way needs on Hinson Road relative to this property. The right-of-way was identified as having been established on the site plan and survey. Mr. Morrison indicated that improvement on the boundary street would not be a problem. Commissioner Oleson asked the Planning Staff to confirm its recommendation. Gary Greeson restated the Planning Staff position. Mr. Morrison then presented arguments concerning the Land Use Plan for this neighborhood. He indicated that the current mandate was outdated, the establishment of office only west of Green Mountain is a number of years old and should be reviewed. January 3, 1989 Item No. C (Continued) Commissioner Oleson then asked how many objectors were in attendance. There were two persons identified. They indicated they lived in the area of Windy Lane and Pleasant Valley on Valley Club Circle. It was further pointed out that there were six to eight persons present at the neighborhood meeting attended by Mr. Gardner and the applicant. At the request of a Commissioner, Gary Greeson presented a larger area map of the neighborhood surrounding this property. Commissioner Miller again raised the issue of acquisition of the property to the east. It was restated again that the property was not available at this time. In response to a question from Commissioner Schlereth, Mr. Morrison indicated that he was working with a bank at this time for establishment on the Phase II, or frontage parcel on Hinson Road. He said Phase II will be built as a focal point for the Center. He further stated that the neighbors are aware of the plans for a bank. He indicated that he thought the neighbors opposed a four-story office building or large scale development for offices on this site. He felt that makes his project more desirable. Commissioner Perkins then asked about the operating times, as to the hours of day and signage on the premises. Mr. Morrison indicated that there was no plan dealing with operating times as there would be multiple users. Staff indicated that this was something that was not typically regulated or accomplished in connection with a PUD. Robert Brown of the Public Works Department was asked to come forward and address the issue of the allowed signage the development. Mr. Brown indicated that the use of the business and the buildings would establish the height and type of signs that would be allowed freestanding, as well the facade signs for the building. A question was then raised by Staff as to whether or not sign code standards could be modified by the Planning Commission review of this Planned Unit Development. The City Attorney, Mr. Giles, advised the Commission that he felt they could not establish standards less than the ordinance. They could add to that standard. Mr. Morrison addressed the issue of signs by stating did not want a large or tall sign on the premises. Commissioner Schlereth then asked of Mr. Morrison if on a -s the that he he e January 3, 1989 Item No. C (Continued] ___ would accept office standards as the basic sign standards for the project. Mr. Morrison indicated that he would and stated that he would work with the City Staff on the signage. The City Attorney followed this comment with a statement that the City should not restrict the time of operation for this development. He also asked that objectors place their comments in the record. This was not accomplished. Gary Greeson then asked of the Commission that they discuss the plan as it relates to the project prior to their action on the proposal. A general discussion then followed involving many of the points raised above. At the end of this discussion a motion was made to approve the PCD as filed with a condition that the signage on the premises to be restricted to office usage. The vote on the motion: 6 ayes, 3 nays, 2 absent. Mr. Greeson then asked of the Chairman that the reasons for approval be stated for the record. These were as follows: 1. This project would maintain the office elements of the project adjacent to the residential uses to the north. 2. The proposal placed the commercial generally against the existing business strip along Hinson Loop Road on the southwest. 3. The development is not a broad commercial use list and is well mixed with office uses. 4. There is an existing Planned Commercial Development immediately across the street, southeast on Hinson Loop Road. 5. This is a site and use specific plan with the proposal tied to a definite plan. E