Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5998 Staff Analysisi 7un� 11, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: Z-5998 A. PROPOSALIREOUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a mixed use planned development No variances are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped; however, there is an old foundation wall at the northeast corner of the tract. The site is currently zoned R-2, with all the property to the south of the site being zoned R-2. To the north, the abutting property is zoned 0-3. To the east is 0-3 property and an R-2 lot, and to the west, is a large MF -18 tract. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff notes the following: 1) Gamble Rd. is designated as a collector street in the Master Street Plan; therefore, a 60 foot right-of-way, with a street section that is 36' back-to-back of curb, is required. Dedication of additional right-of-way to provide for one-half of the required right-of-way will be required. Widening of Gamble St. must be in accordance with the standards for a collector street, and improvements are required for the full one-half width of the required improvements. (Note: If the existing chip seal has adequate base material, this base may be able to be overlaid, subject to City Engineer approval.) A sidewalk must be constructed along the Gamble Rd. frontage of the site. Underground drainage is required by the regulations. Cross- sections and plan -and -profile drawings are required to be submitted. An analysis of the drainage shall accompany the design submitted. 2) A grading permit will be required prior to beginning construction on the site. 3) The drive behind the parking spaces to the west of the office building should be two-way, with minimum width of 36'. Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be required. Wastewater Utility comments that sewer service is available. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. A 15' AP&L easement is shown along the north property line. 2 J 11, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: Z-5998 Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. They noted that Southwestern Bell cable is buried, and that cable television may be overhead. The Fire Department commented that on-site fire hydrants may be required. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist comments that the full on-site street buffer width required along Ferris St. is 14.5 feet. (The minimum requirement with transfer is 9.6 feet.). The Landscape Ordinance requirement for this area is 6 feet. A 3 foot wide building landscape strip between the public parking area and the building is required by the Landscape Ordinance. The Planning staff comments that the site is in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends office uses for this site. The proposed use is primarily commercial, thus not in conformance with the Plan. The Planning staff cannot recommend amendment of the Plan at this time. E. ANALYSIS• The applicant has substantially complied with the technical requirements of the ordinances in the submission. There are some minor issues remaining, specifically, the required building landscaping strip which must be provided not being shown, and the required fence along the south and west property lines not being shown. The office use aspect of the site is in conformance with the adopted Land Use Plan; the mini -storage use is not. Since the mini -storage use is the overwhelmingly predominant use of the site, the planned development, as proposed, is in conflict with the Land Use Plan. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the planned development, as submitted. 3 Jurre 11, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: Z-5998 SUBDIVISION COMMTTTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 8, 1995) Mr. Dusty Edwards, the applicant, and Mr. Manley Roberts, the proposed contractor, were present. Staff outlined the proposed development, and the Committee members reviewed with Misters Edwards and Roberts the comments contained in the dissuasion outline. Mr. Roberts responded that the deficiencies in the plan which were noted would be addressed, and Mr. Edwards indicated that the needed information noted in the discussion outline would be provided. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995) A lengthy discussion was held. There were several persons present objecting. One petition of objection was presented. Many questions were raised about design, access, landscaping driveway width for fire department access. Much consideration was given to street improvements and building design to make the development office in appearance. The Chairman then asked if it would not be appropriate to defer this item two weeks for further study. A motion to that effect was made and passed by vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 11, 1995) The Chairman asked Mr. Sims to present the first item of business on the regular agenda with this item being Item "A" Z-5998. Mr. Sims presented a brief overview of the application, some history of this deferral from the last meeting and presented the revised site plan. Mr. Sims stated for the record that the staff recommendation remained the same, denial of the application as being inconsistent with the adopted Land Use Plan for the area. The Chairman then asked the applicant to come forward and present his application. Mr. Manley Roberts came to the lectern and identified himself and also he introduced Mr. Dusty Edwards, the developer of the site. Mr. Roberts presented the revised plan which had been suggested by the Planning Commission at the last meeting. He offered copies for the Commission and Staff to observe. He presented a brief overview of the modifications that have been made as to the manager's apartment and office and the reorienting of the office structure north and south on the premises to provide a visual 4 -z-uner-11, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE mn- Z-5998 barrier against mini -storage buildings. Mr. Roberts stated that this application now consisttiof no variances. After a brief discussion between the Chairman and Bobby Sims of the Staff, it was determined that the Tony Bozynski needed to come forward and address the land use question. This is the conflict between the adoptee plan and th4'plan proposed by Mr. Edwards. Bozynski came forward and presented his thoughts on the subject of the plan and the inconsistency offered by this application. He indicated that the staff had never supported commercial type development this far south of Markham Street. The Chairman then asked if there were other' present that wished' to address this matter. He pointed out that there were two cards turned in apparently from persons who wished to speak against the application. The first person identified from the cards was Mr. Dale Partridge. Mr. Partridge came forward and offered his concerns about this application. He identified himself as a resident of Gamble Road and reminded the Commission that he also represented some 30 property owners in the area that had signed a petition previously presented to the Commission. Mr. Partridge offered a extended commentary on what he felt was an inappropriate use of land in this area adjacent to residential and its impact physically and in other ways upon the existing environment. He offered some photographs for the Commission's review. Several of the commissioners asked for an opportunity to view these photographs. At this point, there was a lengthy discussion off the microphone and no recording. Mr. Partridge concluded his comments by addressing the traffic access and problems in the area and the movement of large vehicles. The Commission took the opportunity at this point to refresh their memory on the original submittal, the sketch and site plan of the project. The Chairman then recognized Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters. She offered the concerns of the League relative to this application and its intrusion into an area not provided as -commercial or business on the adopted Land Use Plan. She added additional commentary related to how this nonresidential use directly attaches or abuts against residential area. Ms. Bell concluded her remarks. The Chairman then asked if there were other questions by the Commission. Commissioner Chachere asked if staff could identify for her the zoning and verify that there was C-3 commercial across Gamble Road to the northeast of this site. Tony Bozynski responded to the question by stating that there was a small piece of C-3 which was commercial zoning allowed to provide for a nonconforming auto sales operation that existed upon the time of 5 June'11, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM UO -..A Cont. FILE NC3.: Z-5998 annexation. The balance of the property surrounding it is zoned for office and on the plan as office. Bozynski also pointed out that the most recent occupant of this commercial site was a landscape firm. At this point, Deputy City Attorney Stephen Giles inserted some commentary having to do with a presentation of the Mayor earlier in this public hearing. The Mayor's comments having to do with dealing more with planning matters than with zoning matters. Giles stated that in this case before the Commission there is an applicant that has asked the Commission to approve rezoning to a commercial activity in difference to the adopted Land Use Plan which is a violation of that plan and the Commission needs to think very carefully before taking action on this request. He stated that he felt the Commission should determine4 that it had sufficient information reflecting a burden of proof that some kind of extraordinary circumstance existed to justify the rezoning in violation of the plan. He stated that especially f`in a situation such as that evidence here since the plan clearly delineates the use south of Markham for office or residential. The applicant would need to show extraordinary circumstance supporting a change. Commissioner Putnam then posed a question of the City Attorney and the commissioners. The question being, -that are we in the same circumstance in this application as with the Home Center property on Highway 10 which is where changing of the plans should perhaps occur before consideration of changing of the zoning. Jim Lawson responded with an affirmative response. He followed that by saying on zoning cases where there is a question on land use plan, staff does an evaluation of the proposal and the plan intent are charged in these situations as to determine whether or not the plan still makes sense as it perhaps did when it was adopted and to review the possibility of changes in the area that would accommodate plan modification. Lawson stated that staff went through that kind of exercise with this case and could not find -no� justification for recommending a modification of the -- plan. The Chairman then asked if there was further comment from any of the participants or from commissioners. Mr. Manley Roberts then asked the Chairman if he might have permission to address the Commission again relative to some of the comments offered by the opposition. Mr. Roberts offered an extended commentary on the classification on Gamble Road and that being declared to be a major thoroughfare. He pointed out that his applicant, Mr. Edwards, in developing his property would improve that roadway to assist in its eventual usefulness as a thoroughfare. He restated his earlier comment that the offices would be for Mr. Dusty Edwards' operation of his management and realty firm. He also stated that the design that's now presented to the Commission for r June 11, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-5998 its consideration is the one suggested at that last meeting. That suggestion was that there be a significant office involvement along Gamble Road in the form of a structure to provide screening of the warehouse area from passersby. He admitted that the project does abut residential on two sides. He stated the way to handle that was the insulation of a 6 foot fence on the perimeter. Mr. Roberts then moved his commentary to a description of the number of units within the mini -storage, the size of units and the types of persons that would be served. Mr. Roberts then turned the microphone over to Mr. Dusty Edwards, the developer, and asked him to present his thoughts on the application. Mr. Edwards stated that the use he is going to place on this property would be less intensive than if the property were developed totally for office buildings with a traffic generation. For his proposed activity will be quite a bit less than conventional office. He commented that the frequency of use of these units is less than once per month. At the conclusion of Mr. Edwards' remarks, commissioners then asked questions being first was Commissioner Doyle Daniels. Commissioner Daniels indicated that he would like Mr. Edwards to clarify that this project would widen the street in front to 36 feet. The question posed by Commissioner Daniels indicated that he was primarily interested in more than the frontage of this property but the total street frontage from this point to Markham Street. A brief discussion involving staff, commissioners and Public Works resolved the questions about improvements by identifying those portions of Gamble Road that are currently curb and gutter which are very few and those segments which are in a unimproved state or without curb, gutter and underground drainage. The Chairman then stated that he would call for a vote on the item before the Commission because there was not a motion offered. The vote on the application produced a vote of 0 aye, 7 nays and 4 absent. The application was denied. At this point the Chairman was reminded by Tony Bozynski that the applicant has the right of appeal for a period of 30 days. The appeal would be to the City Board of Directors. 7 June 27, 1995 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-599$ NAME: DUSTY EDWARDS MANAGEMENT AND REALTY CO. -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the west side of Gamble Road, approximately 500 feet south of W. Markham St. DEVELOPER: CONTRACTOR: Dusty Edwards Manley Roberts DUSTY EDWARDS MANAGEMENT AND ROBERTS AND CO., REALTY, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTORS 506 Ferry St. 2701 W. 7th.St. Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72205 AREA: 0.865 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 130 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES RE ❑ESTER: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: General Offices, retail sales, & Mini -Storage Facility The applicant proposes development of the 0.865 acre tract for a mixed use development consisting of: 1) a 2 -story, 3,584 square foot building, containing, on the first floor, offices for the applicant's property management and real estate sales business, a lock and key retail business, and the offices for the proposed mini -storage facility, and, on the second floor, a residence for the mini -storage facility's manager; and 2) a mini -storage facility consisting of two single -story buildings, one a 30 foot by 145 foot building containing 4,350 square feet; the other, a 30 foot by 225 foot building containing 6,750 square feet. Parking spaces for 7 vehicles is to be provided. The site is to be fenced along the south and west property lines with a 6 foot high wood privacy fence, and, according to the applicant, is to be "well lit". Dedication of the required right-of-way for and construction of the required street improvements to Gamble Rd., including construction of the sidewalk along the Gamble Rd. frontage of the site, is proposed. No access to and no improvements to Ferris St. are proposed. June 27, 1995 ITEM n FILE Z - A. PRQPQSALIREQUES'i': Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a mixed use planned development No variances are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped; however, there is an old foundation wall at the northeast corner of the tract. The site is currently zoned R-2, with all the property to the south of the site being zoned R-2. To the north, the abutting property is zoned 0-3. To the east is 0-3 property and an R-2 lot, and to the west, is a large MF -18 tract. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff notes the following: 1) Gamble Rd. is designated as a collector street in the Master Street Plan; therefore, a 60 foot right-of-way, with a street section that is 36' back-to-back of curb, is required. Dedication of additional right-of-way to provide for one-half of the required right-of-way will be required. Widening of Gamble St. must be in accordance with the standards for a collector street, and improvements are required for the full one-half width of the required improvements. (Note: If the existing chip seal has adequate base material, this base may be able to be overlaid, subject to City Engineer approval.) A sidewalk must be constructed along the Gamble Rd. frontage of the site. Underground drainage is required by the regulations. Cross- sections and plan -and -profile drawings are required to be submitted. An analysis of the drainage shall accompany the design submitted. 2) A grading permit will be required prior to beginning construction on the site. 3) The drive behind the parking spaces to the west of the office building should be two-way, with minimum width of 36'. Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be required. Wastewater Utility comments that sewer service is available. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. A 15' AP&L easement is shown along the north property line. 2 June 27, 1995 SUPDIVISIQ ITEM N 4 (Cont,} FILE NO.; Z-5998 Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. They noted that Southwestern Bell cable is buried, and that cable television may be overhead. The Fire Department commented that on-site fire hydrants may be required. D. ISS E LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist comments that the full on-site street buffer width required along Ferris St. is 14.5 feet. (The minimum requirement with transfer is 9.6 feet.). The Landscape Ordinance requirement for this area is 6 feet. A 3 foot wide building landscape strip between the public parking area and the building is required by the Landscape Ordinance. The Planning staff comments that the site is in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends office uses for this site. The proposed use is primarily commercial, thus not in conformance with the Plan. The Planning staff cannot recommend amendment of the Plan at this time. E. ANALYSIS• The applicant has substantially complied with the technical requirements of the ordinances in the submission. There are some minor issues remaining, specifically, the required building landscaping strip which must be provided not being shown, and the required fence along the south and west property lines not being shown. The office use aspect of the site is in conformance with the adopted Land Use Plan; the mini -storage use is not. Since the mini -storage use is the overwhelmingly predominant use of the site, the planned development, as proposed, is in c,onflict with the Land Use Plan. F. OTAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the planned development, as submitted. 3 June 27, 1995 SUBDIVISION TT 4 FILE N Z-5998 ION COMMITTEE C9t�: (JUNE 8, 1995) Mr. Dusty Edwards, the applicant, and Mr. Manley Roberts, the proposed contractor, were present. Staff outlined the proposed development, and the Committee members. reviewed with Misters Edwards and Roberts the comments contained in the dissuasion outline. Mr. Roberts responded that the deficiencies in the plan which were noted would be addressed, and Mr. Edwards indicated that the needed information noted in the discussion outline would be provided. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. 4