Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6051-B Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -6051 - NAME: Arkansas Systems Long -Form POD LOCATION: Northeast corner of Chenal Parkway at Technology Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Hank Kelley Tim Daters Chenal Technology Ctr., LLC White-Daters and Assoc. 425 W. Capitol Ave. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-8005 374-1666 AREA: 11.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: 0-2 ALLOWED USES: General Offices PROPOSED USE: Various retail and office at a mix of 75% retail. VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: This tract was preliminary platted on July 18, 1996 along with lots east and south. One lot out of the plat and a segment of street was final platted for a post office. These lots were platted for office use and zoned office in accordance with the land use plan. A. PROPOSAL RE UEST: A retail/office development as follows: As part of Arkansas Systems Office park we would like to develop a mixed office and retail development on the site. The purpose of the development is to provide services to the immediate neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods. We anticipate over the next five years that the population within our office park could grow from its current level of approximately 600 people to in excess of 1,800 people. By having some retail services and office services available within the immediate area we will be providing a convenience to that population as well as the immediately surrounding neighborhood. This should help contain some of the traffic on the Parkway that would otherwise travel to the Chenal- Bowman area. Those uses that we would like to be able to lease to include: FILE NO.: Z -6051-B (Cont.) antique shop beauty shop or barber cigar, tobacco shop clothing store florist shop dry cleaners pickup station copy center physical therapy clinic card shop restaurant (non drive through) art, music, speech, drama studio B. C. Q bakery book or stationary store candy store drug store hobby shop art gallery Real Estate/insurance travel agency gift shop bank camera shop medical clinic duplication shop jewelry store photography studio Catering (for commercial purposes) optical shop We would anticipate that we would lease the southern end to a banking institution with drive up facilities, a restaurant in the middle of the property, and a dry cleaning drop off station on the east end. We think several smaller offices would be interested in locating in the property such a State Farm or Farmers Insurance Agency, a title company, a real estate office, a medical or dental office, a blinds and antique office, a computer sales, service and training office. As far as the percentage of allocation between these various groups we would anticipate that over the life of the property there would be an equal balance (50/50) between those retailers who wanted to serve the office park and the immediate neighborhood and the smaller ground level office users. However, in order to have a viable property we would request the flexibility to increase the retail portion of these permitted uses to a maximum of 75%. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is mostly cleared. There is some road work and construction in the area of the post office site. The land is currently sloping from east to west with a 30 foot plus change in elevation. There is a low area along the northwest quadrant that has drainage issues for resolution. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Must get conditional letter of map revision by FEMA for 100 year floodway prior to issuance building permit. 2. Submit street plans for Technology Drive and Systems Drive. 3. Dedicate a 10, sidewalk/utility easement along Chenal Parkway. 4. Add an 11 ft. lane on Chenal Parkway. Provide design of streets, including striping plan, conforming to the MSP. 5. Remove existing driveways on Chenal in order to construct proposed new driveway entrance. Driveway must be designed per Chenal Parkway standards. E ILE NO.: Z -6051-B Cont. 6. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 8. Grading permit and a development permits for special flood hazard area are required prior to construction. Contact Melvin Hall at 371-4461 or Steve Loop at 371- 4740. 9. Prior to building permit provide three copies of site grading and drainage plans and detention calculations. Contact Bruce Kemmet at 371-4740. 10. Chenal Parkway has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 11,000. Provide for street lights, contact Traffic Engineering 340-4856. 12. Repair or replace any damaged improvements in the right- of-way prior to occupancy. 13. Systems Drive requires reconstruction of earthen dam with certification by an independent geotechnical engineer. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main required with easements. AP&L: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: On site fire protection required. Fire Department: Show fire hydrant locations - nearest off site, all on site. County Plannin : No Comment - inside city LATA: No bus service F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet with ordinance requirements. Curb and gutter will be required to protect all landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. If dumpsters are to be used, their locations must be shown and an eight foot high opaque wood. fence or wall provided to screen three sides. The City Beautiful Commission recommends saving as many existing trees as feasible. Additional credit can be allowed when saving trees of six inch caliper or larger. G. ANALYSIS• The site is in the Chenal District. The Plan recommends Office use for the site. The request is to allow a commercial center to be built along with an office building. This -is in conflict with the Plan. The commercial center is immediately north of the planned commercial area at Kanis 3 FILE NO.: Z -6051-B (Cont. Road and Chenal Parkway. The center would be along Chenal Parkway and is an attempt to continue commercial use north along Chenal Parkway. The request is in conflict and,$taff cannot support changing the Plan to encourage further` stripping of Chenal Parkway. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Although the plan presents some good and commendable goals, the staff cannot support the use ratios proposed. We feel the number for commercial is too high especially in light of strip center design that is oriented outward to Chenal Parkway instead of inward to serve the several large office projects. We recommend denial of the project as presented. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Mr. Hank Kelley was present as was Mr. Tim Daters, the engineer. Mr. Kelley made a presentation, offering some design characteristics that he felt supported the request. The Committee raised questions about the drainageway adjacent and the traffic circulation plan. Mr. Daters explained moving the proposed driveways, now shown at two sites, and making one entry off Chenal. Staff indicated this was more of a use issue than anything and the Committee does not discuss appropriateness of use. Public Works staff briefly touched on several items in their comments. The Committee forwarded this item to the full Commission as more a land use plan and zoning question than site plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Chairman recognized Richard Wood, of the Staff, for purposes of offering the staff recommendation. Wood briefly identified the issue and stated that there was one letter in the file supporting the proposed development and were no objectors of record. Wood then passed the issue to Jim Lawson, of the Staff, for purposes of offering a position statement on this proposal. Lawson identified this project as a somewhat unique proposal and the area for this development is shown on the land use plan for offices. He pointed out this site is approximately 62 acres and that it is all being developed for offices. Under the 0-2 District, a certain percentage of office structures is permitted for accessory commercial which is by ordinance 10%. One office building has already been constructed without the 10% and another is proposed. The proposal of the developer is to take the 10% allotment for those buildings and assemble it in this one development. Lawson proceeded to describe when the project was originally presented that there were certain commercial features 4 FILE NO.: Z -6051-B Cont. staff objected to. Staff has worked with the developer through the last several weeks to come to an agreeable presentation. He stated that the staff still supports this as an office area and taking the commercial off the parkway frontage and assembling it in the B-1, B-2, and B-3 elements of the building we feel is in compliance with the intent of the land use plan. Lawson stated that the final numbers are 12.2% of the gross floor area of the several office buildings are represented here as accessory commercial. He stated staff feels this is now a reasonable request and we have been working with them for some time to amend the design and list of permitted uses. Lawson then stated that perhaps the applicant would like to come forward and clarify some of the issues. Chairman Lichty asked Mr. Lawson if this modified the staff recommendation that was presented in the agenda? Lawson responded by saying yes it did. At this point, the Chairman recognized Mr. Hank Kelley who came forward to present the applicant's position. Mr. Kelley proceeded to describe the area in which this proposal is to be located, the various buildings that are in place. He pointed out there will be three or four additional office buildings in this area. These buildings will increase the working population and this increase will be approximately from 600 to 1,800 persons. The result of such increases will cause people in the office buildings to request that certain support uses be provided such as personal services within the area. Mr. Kelley pointed out the relationship of the workers in this area and that they have significant travel time in distance for personal services such as the lunch period. He stated that he does not have an objection from any of the surrounding developed areas. In fact, they are in support of the proposal. He stated the property immediately to the south of this development is zoned C-3 and that one of the features of this proposal is the buffering action that it would provide between that commercial and the office development to the north. Mr. Kelley pointed out the packet which was handed out to the Commission contain several things and he would like to summarize the issue at this point. He stated there was a sign component that they worked with staff on and would provide a unified look and design for signage. He also pointed out the brick work on the structure will tie in with the brick work on the existing office building for Arkansas Systems. The signage will be subdued in lighting and will be internally lit. He stated that he wanted the appearance of his property in the front to enhance the leasibility of the office spaces developed in the future. He then moved his discussion to the list of uses that had been offered. He pointed out that permitted uses of the 0-2 category would be oriented to the parkway. This is a change from the earlier submittal which typically oriented the commercial uses to the parkway frontage. As a compromise in the presentation the 0-2 uses would be fronted on the parkway. Mr. Kelley pointed to the plan and illustrated that section B-1 on the drawing would perhaps be a restaurant and sections B-2 and B-3 would be uses 5 FILE NO.: Z -6051-B that would compliment the office park and also feed off some of the traffic in the area. Mr. Kelley offered at this point that the architect, Mr. James Williams, was present and could further expand on the issue. Also Mr. Tim Daters, the engineer was present if there were site questions. The Chairman recognized Commissioner Earnest for comments. Commissioner Earnest stated it appeared that between Mr. Kelley and staff, staff had withdrawn its recommendation of denial and the excellent design and compromise design now deals satisfactory with the concerns that staff expressed. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, said that was correct and through the discussion of this issue Mr. Kelley had tied in another office building to this project and committed there will not be commercial in this building. What it represents is that the commercial in this building complex will be approximately 12.2% of the gross floor area of the several office buildings and 10% would have been by right. Commissioner Earnest is correct by saying staff did not support this project earlier. Staff is now comfortable with the proposal and it is truly a mixed Office Commercial development. Looking at the several proposals and that it does not conflict with the adopted land use plan. At this point, Mr. Kelley introduced Mr. David Payne of Arkansas Systems who came forward to offer comments of support. He offered general commentary on the current use of his site, his development plan, the type of pedestrian, roadway and activity in the area. The plan proposes that employees in the area would be able to walk to certain commercial facilities to do banking and shopping. The Chairman then pointed out that he did have a request card from Mr. Daters and Mr. Williams. Mr. Kelley stated that they were here for information or to answer questions as needed. Chairman Lichty then asked if there were those persons present who wish to speak either for or against this issue. There were none. Chairman Lichty then turned the discussion to members of the Commission and asked if there were comments. Commissioner Berry posed a question to staff as to what the required parking ratio is per thousand square feet for this development. Jim Lawson stated that the requirement is 1 per 400 and that staff review noted this plan does meet code. A brief discussion then followed involving staff, Commissioner Berry and others as to the appropriateness of large open parking areas and the provision of what appeared to be an excessive number of parking spaces. It was pointed out to Commissioner Berry that some of the tenants for some these office buildings do require a large number of parking spaces. Commissioner Berry closed his comments on this subject by stating that a primary concern is that parking lots be pedestrian friendly. The use apparently does not give that appearance by offering controlling elements plus it would cause R FILE NO.: Z -6051-B (Cont. pedestrian movement through the parking areas without conflict with automobiles. Staff asked that Mr. Kelley come forward to address this question. Mr. Kelley stated they would definitely address the pedestrian friendly issue. Then, a comment was made by Commissioner Berry concerning is there a need by the developer to exceed parking ratios to the extent that it is represented. Mr. Kelley responded by saying the parking needs are not from the retail but from the office users. He pointed out today's office users attempt to gain more employees in a given area of floor space and some employers want to go as small as one employee per 10 by 10 floor space. This would cause some spillover between the office and the commercial parking areas. He stated that the parking density was driven more by the office users in this complex. Mr. Kelley stated that for this commercial element the parking provided is about 1/3 normally provided if a conventional office building were constructed on this site. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Brandon for a comment. She posed a question to Mr. Robert Brown, of the Staff, as to whether or not the landscaping is appropriate and meets code. Mr. Brown came forward and identified himself. He stated his review indicated that the project was in compliance. They do meet the buffer requirements and the current layout is an improvement over earlier submittals and what they have done so far is very good. The Chairman posed a question to Mr. Kelley concerning uses and stated that some of the uses on the list could become quite as intense. He specifically pointed to some of the institutional uses. Mr. Kelley responded by saying that was not their target market. He proceeded to point to several of the listed uses in the 0-2 and stating they were not uses that they would market. Chairman Lichty expanded his comment to say is it conceivable that there are some of those listed uses which could be excluded? Mr. Kelley stated that he could volunteer to do so. He indicated first off that the college dormitory, fraternity or sorority and seminary and perhaps if UALR wanted to place a facility there as a business extension office. They would like to provide such. A convent or a monastery could also be eliminated. Chairman Lichty at this point inserted a comment about the Commission constantly getting into discussion and debate about mixed uses of office and commercial. Getting into permitted uses sometimes are more burdensome and more intense than intended. Mr. Kelley then turned to his 0-2 District list of uses eliminating a lodge, mortuary or funeral home, nursing home or convalescent home. He offered that this list of items could be eliminated. Chairman Lichty asked Jim Lawson, of the Staff, if staff could review that and determine if there are other uses that might be offensive. Mr. Kelley might want to remove them. Mr. Lawson stated yes staff would make such a review. 7 FILE NO.: Z -6051-B Cont. At this point, the Chairman said he would entertain a motion on this subject. Commissioner Hawn then offered a motion which stated that the Commission accept item #11 as offered by the applicant with staff considerations. The motion was secon`d'ed and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 8 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.• 11 FILE NO.: Z -6051-B NAME: Arkansas Systems Long -Form POD LOCATION: Northeast corner of Chenal Parkway at Technology Drive DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• Hank Kelley Tim Daters Chenal Technology Ctr., LLC White-Daters and Assoc. 425 W. Capitol Ave. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-8005 374-1666 AREA: 11.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: 0-2 ALLOWED USES: General Offices PROPOSED USE: Various retail and office at a mix of 75% retail. VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: This tract was preliminary platted on July 18, 1996 along with lots east and south. One lot out of the plat and a segment of street was final platted for a post office. These lots were platted for office use and zoned office in accordance with the land use plan. A. PROPOSAL RE UEST: A retail/office development as follows: As part of Arkansas Systems Office park we would like- to develop a mixed office and retail development on the site. The purpose of the development is to provide services to the immediate neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods. We anticipate over the next five years that the population within our office park could grow from its current level of approximately 600 people to in excess of 1,800 people. By having some retail services and office services available within the immediate area we will be providing a convenience to that population as well as the immediately surrounding neighborhood. This should help contain some of the traffic on the Parkway that would otherwise travel to the Chenal- October 30, ',-1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5051-B Bowman area. Those uses that we would like to be able to lease to include: antique shop beauty shop or barber cigar, tobacco shop clothing store florist shop dry cleaners pickup station copy center physical therapy clinic card shop restaurant (non drive through) art, music, speech, drama studio B. C. 191 bakery book or stationary store candy store drug store hobby shop art gallery Real Estate/insurance travel agency gift shop bank camera shop medical clinic duplication shop jewelry store photography studio Catering (for commercial purposes) optical shop We would anticipate that we would lease the southern end to a banking institution with drive up facilities, a restaurant in the middle of the property, and a dry cleaning drop off station on the east end. We think several smaller offices would be interested in locating in the property such a State Farm or Farmers Insurance Agency, a title company, a real estate office, a medical or dental office, a blinds and antique office, a computer sales, service and training office. As far as the percentage of allocation between these various groups we would anticipate that over the life of the property there would be an equal balance (50/50) between those retailers who wanted to serve the office park and the immediate neighborhood and the smaller ground level office users. However, in order to have a viable property we would request the flexibility to increase the retail portion of these permitted uses to a maximum of 75%. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is mostly cleared. There is some road work and construction in the area of the post office site. The land is currently sloping from east to west with a 30 foot plus change in elevation. There is a low area along the northwest quadrant that has drainage issues for resolution. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Must get conditional letter of map revision by FEMA for 100 year floodway prior to issuance building permit. 2. Submit street plans for Technology Drive and Systems Drive. 2 October` 30, 11997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont. E. F. L FILE NO.: Z-6051- 3. Dedicate a 10, sidewalk/utility easement along Chenal Parkway. 4. Add an 11 ft. lane on Chenal Parkway. Provide design of streets, including striping plan, conforming to the MSP. 5. Remove existing driveways on Chenal in order to construct proposed new driveway entrance. Driveway must be designed per Chenal Parkway standards. 6. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 8. Grading permit and --a development permits for special flood hazard area are required prior to construction. Contact Melvin Hall at 371-4461 or Steve Loop at 371- 4740. 9. Prior to building permit provide three copies of site grading and drainage plans and detention calculations. Contact Bruce Kemmet at 371-4740. 10. Chenal Parkway has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 11,000. 11. Provide for street lights, contact Traffic Engineering 340-4856. 12. Repair or replace any damaged improvements in the right- of-way prior to occupancy. 13. Systems Drive requires reconstruction of earthen dam with certification by an independent geotechnical engineer. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main required with easements. AP&L: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: On site fire protection required. Fire Department: Show fire hydrant locations site, all on site. County Plannin : No Comment - inside city CATA: No bus service ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: - nearest off Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet with ordinance requirements. Curb and gutter will be required to protect all landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. If dumpsters are to be used, their locations must be shown and an eight foot high opaque wood fence or wall provided to screen three sides. f October` 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6051-B The City Beautiful Commission recommends saving as many existing trees as feasible. Additional credit can be allowed when saving trees of six inch caliper or larger. G. ANALYSIS• The site is in the Chenal District. The Plan recommends Office use for the site. The request is to allow a commercial center to be built along with an office building. This is in conflict with the Plan. The commercial center is immediately north of the planned commercial area at Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway. The center would be along Chenal Parkway and is an attempt to continue commercial use north along Chenal Parkway. The request is in conflict and staff cannot support changing the Plan to encourage further stripping of Chenal Parkway. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Although the plan presents some good and commendable goals, the staff cannot support the use ratios proposed. We feel the number for commercial is too high especially in light of strip center design that is oriented outward to Chenal Parkway instead of inward to serve the several large office projects. We recommend denial of the project as presented. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Mr. Hank Kelley was present as was Mr. Tim Daters, the engineer. Mr. Kelley made a presentation, offering some design characteristics that he felt supported the request. The Committee raised questions about the drainageway adjacent and the traffic circulation plan. Mr. Daters explained moving the proposed driveways, now shown at two sites, and making one entry off Chenal. Staff indicated this was more of a use issue than anything and the Committee does not discuss appropriateness of use. Public Works staff briefly touched on several items in their comments. The Committee forwarded this item to the full Commission as more a land use plan and zoning question than site plan. 4 October 30,1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: .. Z -6051-B (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Chairman recognized Richard Wood, of the Staff, for purposes of offering the staff recommendation. Wood briefly identified the issue and stated that there was one letter in the file supporting the proposed development and were no objectors of record. Wood then passed the issue to Jim Lawson, of the Staff, for purposes of offering a position statement on this proposal. Lawson identified this project as a somewhat unique proposal and the area for this development is shown on the land use plan for offices. He pointed out this site is approximately 62 acres and that it is all being developed for offices. Under the 0-2 District, a certain percentage of office structures is permitted for accessory commercial which is by ordinance 10%. One office building has already been constructed without the 10% and another is proposed. The proposal of the developer is to take the 10% allotment for those buildings and assemble it in this one development. Lawson proceeded to describe when the project was originally presented that there were certain commercial features staff objected to. Staff has worked with the developer through the last several weeks to come to an agreeable presentation. He stated that the staff still supports this as an office area and taking the commercial off the parkway frontage and assembling it in the B-1, B-2, and B-3 elements of the building we feel is in compliance with the intent of the land use plan. Lawson stated that the final numbers are 12.2% of the gross floor area of the several office buildings are represented here as accessory commercial. He stated staff feels this is now a reasonable request and we have been working with them for some time to amend the design and list of permitted uses. Lawson then stated that perhaps the applicant would like to come forward and clarify some of the issues. Chairman Lichty asked Mr. Lawson if this modified the staff recommendation that was presented in the agenda? Lawson responded by saying yes it did. At this point, the Chairman recognized Mr. Hank Kelley who came forward to present the applicant's position. Mr. Kelley proceeded to describe the area in which this proposal is to be located, the various buildings that are in place. He pointed out there will be three or four additional office buildings in this area. These buildings will increase the working population and this increase -will be approximately from 600 to 1,800 persons. The result of such increases will cause people in the office buildings to request that certain support uses be provided such as personal services within the area. Mr. Kelley pointed out the relationship of the workers in this area and that they have significant travel time in distance for personal services such as the lunch period. He stated that he 5 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6051-B does not have an objection from any of the surrounding developed areas. In fact, they are in support of the proposal. He stated the property immediately to the south of this development is zoned C-3 and that one of the features of this proposal is the buffering action that it would provide between that commercial and the office development to the north. Mr. Kelley pointed out the packet which was handed out to the Commission contain several things and he would like to summarize the issue at this point. He stated there was a sign component that they worked with staff on and would provide a unified look and design for signage. He also pointed out the brick work on the structure will tie in with the brick work on the existing office building for Arkansas Systems. The signage will be subdued in lighting and will be internally lit. He stated that he wanted the appearance of his property in the front to enhance the leasibility of the office spaces developed in the future. He then moved his discussion to the list of uses that had been offered. He pointed out that permitted uses of the 0-2 category would be oriented to the parkway. This is a change from the earlier submittal which typically oriented the commercial uses to the parkway frontage. As a compromise in the presentation the 0-2 uses would be fronted on the parkway. Mr. Kelley pointed to the plan and illustrated that section B-1 on the drawing would perhaps be a restaurant and sections B-2 and B-3 would be uses that would compliment the office park and also feed off some of the traffic in the area. Mr. Kelley offered at this point that the architect, Mr. James Williams, was present and could further expand on the issue. Also Mr. Tim Daters, the engineer was present if there were site questions. The Chairman recognized Commissioner Earnest for comments. Commissioner Earnest stated it appeared that between Mr. Kelley and staff, staff had withdrawn its recommendation of denial and the excellent design and compromise design now deals satisfactory with the concerns that staff expressed. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, said that was correct and through the discussion of this issue Mr. Kelley had tied in another office building to this project and committed there will not be commercial in this building. What it represents is that the commercial in this building complex will be approximately 12.2f of the gross floor area of the several office buildings and loo would have been by right. Commissioner Earnest is correct by ;'saying staff did not support this project earlier. Staff is now comfortable with the proposal and it is truly a mixed Office Commercial development. Looking at the several proposals and tha it does not conflict with the adopted land use plan. At this point, Mr. Kelley introduced Mr. David Payne of Arkansas Systems who came forward to offer comments of support. He 6 October 30, 1997 SUBI)IVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6051-B offered general commentary on the current use of his site, his development plan, the type of pedestrian, roadway and activity in the area. The plan proposes that employees in the area would be able to walk to certain commercial facilities to do banking and shopping. The Chairman then pointed out that he did have a request card from Mr. Daters and Mr. Williams. Mr. Kelley stated that they were here for information or to answer questions as needed. Chairman Lichty then asked if there were those persons present who wish to speak either for or against this issue. There were none. Chairman Lichty then turned the discussion to members of the Commission and asked if there were comments. Commissioner Berry posed a question to staff as to what the required parking ratio is per thousand square feet for this development. Jim Lawson stated that the requirement is 1 per 400 and that staff review noted this plan does meet code. A brief discussion then followed involving staff, Commissioner Berry and others as to the appropriateness of large open parking areas and the provision of what appeared to be an excessive number of parking spaces. It was pointed out to Commissioner Berry that some of the tenants for some these office buildings do require a large number of parking spaces. Commissioner Berry closed his comments on this subject by stating that a primary concern is that parking lots be pedestrian friendly. The use apparently does not give that appearance by offering controlling elements plus it would cause pedestrian movement through the parking areas without conflict with automobiles. Staff asked that Mr. Kelley come forward to address this question. Mr. Kelley stated they would definitely address the pedestrian friendly issue. Then, a comment was made by Commissioner Berry concerning is there a need by the developer to exceed parking ratios to the extent that it is represented. Mr. Kelley responded by saying the parking needs are not from the retail but from the office users. He pointed out today's office users attempt to gain more employees in a given area of floor space and some employers want to go as small as one employee per 10 by 10 floor space. This would cause some spillover between the office and the commercial parking areas. He stated that the parking density was driven more by the office users in this complex. Mr. Kelley stated that for this commercial element the parking provided is about 1/3 normally provided if a conventional office building were constructed on this site. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Brandon for a comment. She posed a question to Mr. Robert Brown, of the Staff, as to whether or. not the landscaping is appropriate and meets code. Mr. Brown came forward and identified himself. He stated his 7 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6051-B review indicated that the project was in compliance. They do meet the buffer requirements and the current layout is an improvement over earlier submittals and what they have done so far is very good. The Chairman posed a question to Mr. Kelley concerning uses and stated that some of the uses on the list could become quite as intense. He specifically pointed to some of the institutional uses. Mr. Kelley responded by saying that was not their target market. He proceeded to point to several of the listed uses in the 0-2 and stating they were not uses that they would market. Chairman Lichty expanded his comment to say is it conceivable that there are some of those listed uses which could be excluded? Mr. Kelley stated that he could volunteer to do so. He indicated first off that the college dormitory, fraternity or sorority and seminary and perhaps if UALR wanted to place a facility there as a business extension office. They would like to provide such. A convent or a monastery could also be eliminated. Chairman Lichty at this point inserted a comment about the Commission constantly getting into discussion and debate about mixed uses of office and commercial. Getting into permitted uses sometimes are more burdensome -and more intense than intended. Mr. Kelley then turned to his 0-2 District list of uses eliminating a lodge, mortuary or funeral home, nursing home or convalescent home. He offered that this list of items could be eliminated. Chairman Lichty asked Jim Lawson, of the Staff, if staff could review that and determine. if there are other uses that might be offensive. Mr. Kelley might want to remove them. Mr. Lawson stated yes staff would make such a review. At this point, the Chairman said he would entertain a motion on this subject. Commissioner Hawn then offered a motion which stated that the Commission accept item #11 as offered by the applicant with staff considerations. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 8