Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5852 Staff AnalysisJuly 26, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z--5852 NAME: PENNEY 13241 CANTRELL ROAD -- SHORT -FORM POD LOCATION: On the south side of Highway 10, approximately 1/4 mile west of Sam Peck Road DEVELOPER: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: JAMES A. "BUTCH" PENNEY BRIAN MINYARD 29415 Penney Lane 1400 W. Markham St., Suite 410 Roland, AR 72135 Little Rock, AR 72201 330-2464 375-5725 AREA: 0.25 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Office Proposed is the development of a 2 -story, 4,200 square foot office building on a 0.25 acre tract. The building is to be located at the rear of the property, with 10 foot rear and side yard setbacks, and will occupy approximately 19% of the site. The parking is to be at the front of the site, with parking for 12 vehicles being provided. Parking lot lighting will be building mounted, and fixtures will be floodlights with glare control devices. A monument sign is proposed to be located immediately behind the front property line, with the size to meet the City standards. Landscaping and fencing, as required by the Landscape Ordinance are proposed to be met, with a wood "good neighbor" fence to be located on the property line on the rear and on both sides. A landscape irrigation system is to be installed. The applicant requests approval of all uses listed as uses by right in the 0-2 zoning district. A. PROPOSAL RE UEST: The applicant requests a Planned Office Development in order to construct a 2 -story, 4,200 square foot office building on a 0.25 acre tract. The building is to be located at the rear of the tract, with 10 foot rear and side yard setbacks indicated. The parking is to be located to the north of the building, between the building and Highway 10, and parking for 12 vehicles is provided. The requirements for landscaping and perimeter fencing are proposed to be met. July 26, 1994 HDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3(Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5852 All uses by right as listed in the 0-2 zoning district are requested by the applicant for the POD. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is on the south side of Highway 10, immediately east of the Panky neighborhood area. The existing zoning is R-2, with the surrounding area being exclusively R-2. The site is slightly depressed in elevation from the elevation of Highway 10, and has had considerable fill material placed on it over the last several years. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that the site, including the area at the rear of the site which is apparently in the flood plain, was filled illegally a number of years ago. The fill is reported to have covered lumber from a razed structure and felled trees. The apparently code violations must be addressed. An engineering study must be conducted on the flood prone portion of the site. The proposed driveway must be realigned so that it is 900 to Cantrell Road. A sidewalk must be constructed along the Cantrell Road frontage. Little Rock Water Works reports that they have no objection to the proposed building. They report that there is an existing 5/8" meter serving this site. Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required to provide sewer - service to the site. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. They indicate that a 15 foot wide easement along all four sides -•-- of the site will be required. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. They indicate that a 15 foot wide easement along the east, west, and south property lines will be required. The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review reports that the Highway 10 Overlay requires a 40 foot wide landscape buffer along Cantrell Road and a 25 foot wide buffer along the southern, eastern, and western perimeters. A sprinkler system to water required plantings must be provided. The proposed landscaping is in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance. E July 26, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 Continued FILE NO.: Z-5852 D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The planning staff reports that the site is in the River Mountain Planning District, and the Land Use Plan recommends "transition zone" for the site. The proposed use, then, is consistent with the adopted plan. The planning staff cautions, though, that there are issues related to the Highway 10 overlay which must be dealt with. The parking requirements for general and professional office uses is 1 space per 400 square feet. This building, at 4200 square feet would be required to provide 11 spaces. The proposal includes the provision for 12 spaces. The 0-2 zoning district require front, side, and rear yard setbacks of at least 25 feet. This site is proposed to have 10 foot side and rear setbacks. E. ANALYSIS• There are serious concerns from staff regarding the material buried on the site and the acceptability of the method and material used to fill the site. There are concerns about the location of the flood prone area, and there is a need for completion of a study to determine whether a flood plain exists on the property. The proposed building is a 2 -story building, sitting just 10 feet from the sides and rear property lines. As tall as end walls and the roof will be to the property lines, there is too much building mass without adequate setback. The 0-2 zoning district requires 25 foot setbacks on a minimum 2 -acre site. The POD is.not____. bound by these restrictions, but the rear and side setback requirements may be used as a guideline. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the application as presented. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 7, 1994) The applicant, Mr. Butch Penney, and the landscape architect, Mr. Bryan Minyard, were present. Staff outlined the scope of the proposed project. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Penney and Mr. Minyard the comments provided in the discussion outline. The Committee discussed the various deficiencies and comments, then forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. rI July 26, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 tContinued) FILE NO.: Z-5852 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994) Staff reported that the original notices sent to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed POD had indicated that the Commission meeting would be held at 5:30, but that corrected notices had been mailed on July 22. Staff advised the Commission that a bylaws waiver would be necessary, since the provision of the bylaws which requires 15 days notice was not met. Staff reiterated the staff concerns regarding the proposal: that the building is too large for the site, and that only 10 foot side and rear yard setbacks are proposed; that the site was, in the past, improperly filled and the fill material used was improper; and, the site plan does not deal with the stormwater run-off onto abutting properties which are substantially lower in elevation than the now -filled site. Staff reported that the flood plain issue, which had been cited earlier as a concern, had been resolved when the engineering data submitted had indicated that the flood plain does not affect the site. Mr. Brian Minyard, representing the applicant, presented the proposal, indicating that the building was sited as it was to meet the Highway 10 design overlay setback requirements. He said that landscaping and parking requirements had been met, and that there was a need for the size of building proposed. He related that the applicant's son had graduated from dental school, and that the applicant was proposing to construct a dental office for his son. He said that the second story was to be used for lease space. Mr. J. A. Penney, the applicant, reiterated that he planned to build his son an office for his dental practice, and to use the :.,___- second floor as lease space. He explained that unauthorized fill. material which had contained landscape timbers had been placed on the site by someone, but that he had removed these timbers. Re- assured the Commission that he would construct a sound, properly engineered building on the site. Commissioner McDaniel asked Mr. Penney to address the staff concerns regarding the building being too close to the side and rear property lines. Mr. Penney offered to change the building from a full 2 -story building to a 1 1/2 story building, indicating that the height of the building would be reduced by approximately 12 feet. He explained that with a 1 1/2 story building, the roof begins at the first floor ceiling line, and that the second floor walls are formed by the roof. This, he explained, would make the building appear less massive and look more like a 1 -story building. 4 Ju Ty 26, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 Continued FILE NO.: Z-5852 A motion was made and seconded to approve the stipulation that the building be a 1 1/2 story The motion also contained a provision to waive provision. The motion carried with the vote o 2 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 5 POD, with the office building. the bylaws notice f 7 ayes, 1 nay, 1. meeting Date: September 5, 1994 2. Case No.: Z-5852 3. RecFuest: Establish PENNEY 13241 CANTRELL ROAD -- SHORT-FORM POD 4. Location: On the south side of Highway 10, approximatley 1/4 mile west of Sam Peck Road 5. Owner/Applicant: James A. "Butch" Penney 6. Existing Status: Vacant; zoned R-2 7. Proposed Use: Offices 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval 10. Conditions or issues Remaining to be Resolved: None 11. Right -of -Way Issues: None 12. Recommendation Forwarded With: A vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position 13. Ob'ectors: None 14. Neighborhood Contact Person_ /others: Odel Harris, Pankey Neighborhood 15. Neighborhood Plan: River Mountain (1) FILE NO.: Z-5852 NAME: PENNEY 13241 CANTRELL ROAD -- SHORT -FORM POD LOCATION: On the south side of Highway 10, approximately 1/4 mile west of Sam Peck Road DEVELOPER: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: JAMES A. "BUTCH" PENNEY BRIAN MINYARD 29415 Penney Lane 1400 W. Markham St., Suite 410 Roland, AR 72135 Little Rock, AR 72201 330-2464 375-5725 AREA: 0.25 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Office Proposed is the development of a 2 -story, 4,200 square foot office building on a 0.25 acre tract. The building is to be located at the rear of the property, with 10 foot rear and side yard setbacks, and will occupy approximately 19% of the site. The parking is to be at the front of the site, with parking for 12 vehicles being provided. Parking lot lighting will be building mounted, and fixtures will be floodlights with glare control devices. A monument sign is proposed to be located immediately behind the front property line, with the size to meet the City standards. Landscaping and fencing, as required by the Landscape Ordinance are proposed to be met, with a wood "good neighbor" fence to be located on the property line on the rear and on both sides. A landscape irrigation system is to be installed. The applicant requests approval of all uses listed as uses by right in the 0-2 zoning district. A. PROPOSAL RE VEST: The applicant requests a Planned Office Development in order to construct a 2 -story, 4,200 square foot office building on a 0.25 acre tract. The building is to be located at the rear of the tract, with 10 foot rear and side yard setbacks indicated. The parking is to be located to the north of the building, between the building and Highway 10, and parking for 12 vehicles is provided. The requirements for landscaping and perimeter fencing are proposed to be met. All uses by right as listed in the 0-2 zoning district are requested by the applicant for the POD. FILE NO.: Z-5852 (Continued) B. C. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is on the south side of Highway 10, immediately east of the Panky neighborhood area. The existing zoning is R-2, with the surrounding area being exclusively R-2. The site is slightly depressed in elevation from the elevation of Highway 10, and has had considerable fill material placed on it over the last several years. ENGINEERING UTTLITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that the site, including the area at the rear of the site which is apparently in the flood plain, was filled illegally a number of years ago. The fill is reported to have covered lumber from a razed structure and felled trees. The apparently code violations must be addressed. An engineering study must be conducted on the flood prone portion of the site. The proposed driveway must be realigned so that it is 900 to Cantrell Road. A sidewalk must be constructed along the Cantrell Road frontage. Little Rock Water Works reports that they have no objection to the proposed building. They report that there is an existing 5/8" meter serving this site. Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required to provide sewer service to the site. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. They indicate that a 15 foot wide easement along all four sides of the site will be required. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. They indicate that a 15 foot wide easement along the east, west, and south property lines will be required. The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review reports that the Highway 10 Overlay requires a 40 foot wide landscape buffer along Cantrell Road and a 25 foot wide buffer along the southern, eastern, and western perimeters. A sprinkler system to water required plantings must be provided. The proposed landscaping is in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance. 0a FILE NO_: Z-5852 Continued D. ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: The planning staff reports that the site is in the River Mountain Planning District, and the Land Use Plan recommends "transition zone" for the site. The proposed use, then, is consistent with the adopted plan. The planning staff cautions, though, that there are issues related to the Highway 10 overlay which must be dealt with. The parking requirements for general and professional office uses is 1 space per 400 square feet. This building, at 4200 square feet would be required to provide 11 spaces. The proposal includes the provision for 12 spaces. The 0-2 zoning district require front, side, and rear yard setbacks of at least 25 feet. This site is proposed to have 10 foot side and rear setbacks. E. ANALYSIS• There are serious concerns from staff regarding the material buried on the site and the acceptability of the method and material used to fill the site. There are concerns about the location of the flood prone area, and there is a need for completion of a study to determine whether a flood plain exists on the property. The proposed building is a 2 -story building, sitting just 10 feet from the sides and rear property lines. As tall as end walls and the roof will be to the property lines, there is too much building mass without adequate setback. The 0-2 zoning district requires 25 foot setbacks on a minimum 2 - acre site. The POD is not bound by these restrictions, but the rear and side setback requirements may be used as a guideline. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the application as presented. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 7, 1994) The applicant, Mr. Butch Penney, and the landscape architect, Mr. Bryan Minyard, were present. Staff outlined the scope of the proposed project. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Penney and Mr. Minyard the comments provided in the discussion outline. The Committee discussed the various deficiencies and comments, then forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. 3 FILE NO.: Z-5$52 (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994) Staff reported that the original notices sent to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed POD had indicated that the Commission meeting would be held at 5:30, but that corrected notices had been mailed on July 22. Staff advised the Commission that a bylaws waiver would be necessary, since the provision of the bylaws which requires 15 days notice was not met. Staff reiterated the staff concerns regarding the proposal: that the building is too large for the site, and that only 10 foot side and rear yard setbacks are proposed; that the site was, in the past, improperly filled and the fill material used was improper; and, the site plan does not deal with the stormwater run-off onto abutting properties which are substantially lower in elevation than the now -filled site. Staff reported that the flood plain issue, which had been cited earlier as a concern, had been resolved when the engineering data submitted had indicated that the flood plain does not affect the site. Mr. Brian Minyard, representing the applicant, presented the proposal, indicating that the building was sited as it was to meet the Highway 10 design overlay setback requirements. He said that landscaping and parking requirements had been met, and that there was a need for the size of building proposed. He related that the applicant's son had graduated from dental school, and that the applicant was proposing to construct a dental office for his son. He said that the second story was to be used for lease space. Mr. J. A. Penney, the applicant, reiterated that he planned to build his son an office for his dental practice, and to use the second floor as lease space. He explained that unauthorized fill material which had contained landscape timbers had been placed on the site by someone, but that he had removed these timbers. He assured the Commission that he would construct a sound, properly engineered building on the site. Commissioner McDaniel asked Mr. Penney to address the staff concerns regarding the building being too close to the side and rear property lines. Mr. Penney offered to change the building from a full 2 -story building to a 1 1/2 story building, indicating that the height of the building would be reduced by approximately 12 feet. He explained that with a 1 1/2 story building, the roof begins at the first floor ceiling line, and that the second floor walls are formed by the roof. This, he explained, would make the building appear less massive and look more like a 1 -story building. 4 FILE NO.: Z-5852 Continued A motion was made and seconded to approve the POD, with the stipulation that the building be a 1 1/2 story office building. The motion also contained a provision to waive the bylaws notice provision. The motion carried with the vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 5