HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5127-A Staff AnalysisMarch 13, 1990
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z -5127-A
NAME: Woodland Heights Office/Space Center
LOCATION: The west side of Woodland Heights Road at
Fairview Road.
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
Rees Development Co. White-Daters & Associates
13401 Beckenham Drive 401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72202
224-3826 374-1666
AREA: 3.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET:
.. _......... .......... . .....
ZONING: 110-2"
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
PROPOSED USES:
1 - Highway 10
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
None
Office/storage
The tract in this application is one of the few remaining
undeveloped properties in this neighborhood and is
surrounded by a mix of office buildings and residential.
N
The project consists of the construction of an office
building and five mini -storage buildings. The front
building on the property will be an office with brick front
and glass windows with canopies and a steel roof. There
will be 28 parking spaces for this 13,000 square foot office
building.
The remaining five buildings will vary in size from
10,800 square feet to 5,400 square feet. These will be
storage spaces.
The developer plans to have 50 foot setbacks on the front
30 feet on the north and south. At the rear of the site,
the developer proposes 50-65 feet of buffer zone. The
property also will be surrounded by a six foot fence which
will not be noticeable from the front of the development.
1
March 13, 1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No. A (Con tinuedI
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The developer proposes the construction of an office
building and five mini storage buildings on a three
acre tract. The site is proposed to be entered from
Woodland Heights Road. The proposal includes buffer
area along the west property line.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This site, approximately three acres in area, is
cleared. The property is accessed by a street along
the east boundary. The area to the north is currently
vacant and zoned for office use. The area to the south
is currently occupied by a small engine repair shop and
residential house. To the west along Pleasant Forest
Cove and rearing this project are single family homes.
C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Site Plan is based on obsolete survey; new information
required on existing street names, right of way and
improvements. Engineering and survey certificates are
not in conformance with City of Little Rock
requirements. Detention and excavation ordinances
apply.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
This PUD filing is rather incomplete in nature with a
failing of several important elements, one being a
proper updated survey of the site. The site plan is
only partially dimensioned, thereby leaving too many
elements to question. This is a significant issue for
a PUD and the subsequent plat that will be required.
There are also a number of site plan elements missing.
These include the source of title, and book and page on
the certificate of ownership, preliminary engineering
certificate, legal description and existing street
names.
Finally, we would like to point out that the properties
on this site have been involved in previous
applications. This subdivision plat, when approved by
the Planning Commission, was approved for Nursery PCD
development.
2
March 13, 1990
SUBDIVISION
Item. No. A (Continued)
E. ANALYSIS:
The staff view of this proposal is that the project
requires significant changes due to its impact on the
adjacent residential properties to the west. There are
a number of homes along Pleasant Forest Cove that rear
upon this property. If it is to be approved, it is our
feeling that a significant buffering action should
occur adjacent to the rear property lines of those
homes.
There are also several additional items concerning the
site plan we feel require additional work on the part
of the developer. This includes the updated survey and
site plan completely dimensioned; and the redesign of
the several buildings to increase compatibility with
neighbors. If required to offer a recommendation on
this project at this time, we will recommend denial
because of the land use plan incompatibility and spot
use of a warehouse nature.
F . STAFF R)COMMENDATI.ON :
The staff feels that this PUD filing is of such a
nature that a proper review cannot be accomplished at
this time. We would suggest that the applicant request
a withdrawal and resubmit it in a proper form in order
to answer the several issues pointed out above. We
would like to point out that the previous PUD on this
site was controversial with and caused ordinance
amendments in order to deal with a nursery and
landscape business.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS_: (January 18, 1990)
........................................._.._........................................... ..... .....
Mr. Rees was present as was his contractor for this project.
A lengthy discussion followed, principally dealing with land
use concerns. These had to do with questions concerning the
residential neighborhood directly west, and spot use of a
warehouse nature. Mr. Rees agreed to meet with the
neighborhood, and submit an updated survey and site plan
before Thursday noon of next week.
3
March 13, 1990
SUBDIVISION
Item No. A (Continued
As a last item, the Engineering staff pointed out that the
applicant would need to comply with Detention and Excavation
ordinances. The Water Works Department would need to
approve an on-site fire hydrant and determine the depth of
raw water lines.
There being no further discussion, the item was forwarded to
the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 30, 1990)
The staff informed the Commission that the PCD application
needed to be deferred due to some notice deficiencies. The
item was placed on the consent agenda and deferred to the
March 13, 1990 meeting. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 1, 1990)
The applicant was not present nor was he represented. The
staff reported that the applicant had submitted a revised
survey. Staff has also received a letter from abutting
property owners requesting denial of this application as
incompatible with the land use plan which calls for office
use.
There being no further discussion on this item, it was
forwarded to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (March 13, 1990)
There was one person registered to speak against the
proposed development. The Planning staff told the
Commission that the applicant had provided a written request
for withdrawal. At the public hearing, the Planning
Commission determined that the objector, Mr. Tommy Hanson,
did not oppose the withdrawal. A motion was made to approve
the request for withdrawal. The motion passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent.
4
May 7, 1991
C 2w
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
7-A
A. Richard Smith
John A. Rees
Woodland Heights Road
Rezone from PCD to 0-3
Office
2.3 Acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, zoned 0-3
South - Vacant and single-family, zoned R-2 and 0-3
East - Vacant, zoned 0-3
West - Easter Seals, zoned 0-2
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The issue before the Planning Commission is to revoke the
existing PCD and to reestablish the previous 0-3
classification. The PCD was approved in 1989 for a
landscape and nursery business with plant sales, greenhouse
areas, and open storage. The project was never developed,
and the site is still vacant.
Restoring the 0-3 conforms to the adopted Highway 10 Plan
which identifies the site for office use/development. Also,
0-3 is more compatible with the general area and the
residential neighborhood, Pleasant Forest Cove, to the
southwest. Office zoning abuts the property on the
northwest and south sides. Across Woodland Heights Road,
the existing zoning is 0-3.
Staff views this as a routine matter and supports the
revocation of the PCD and the rezoning to 0-3. There are no
unresolved issues.
(In addition to acting on the rezoning request, the Planning
Commission must also endorse a resolution recommending to
the Board of Directors that the existing PCD be revoked.)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
None reported.
1
May 7, 1991
ITEM N❑.: C �-5127-A Cant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the PCD to 0-3
reclassification.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (April 9, 1991)
Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred because
the applicant failed to notify the required property owners.
A motion was made to defer the issue to the May 7, 1991,
hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 nays, and 4 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (May 7, 1991)
Staff reported that the request could be withdrawn because
no rezoning action was required. The item was placed on the
consent agenda and a motion was made to withdraw the 0-3
rezoning. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 nays, 3 absent and one open position.
(NOTE: A rezoning from PCD to 0-3 is not needed because a
condition of the reclassification ordinance, final plan
approval, has not been met. Therefore, it has been
determined that a rezoning did not take place, and the
zoning map should be changed to reflect the 0-3.)
2