Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6060 Staff Analysis} IA 'FILE Z-6960 — PIEDMONT OFFICE PARR -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - OFFICE LOCATION: On the south side of Cantrell Rd., approximately 0.1 mile east of Sam Peck Rd. DEVEL PER• ENGINEER: DR. GENE GINES, ERIC H❑TCHINSON, & Frank Riggins DR. JOHN DANIELS THE MEHLB❑RGER FIRM 14710 Cantrell Rd. P. O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72203 868-4140 375-5331 AREA: 3.8 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEWSTREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Professional Offices PTLMMI DIM-1T • 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES RE ❑ TED• 1) Approval of a common access easement and private interior drives for access to interior lots. 2) Approval of a variance to permit two entrance drives from Cantrell Rd. 3) Approval of a waiver of the sidewalk requirement along Cantrell Rd. and along the interior driveways. 4) Approval of a waiver of the land use buffer along the south property line. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Proposed is a planned development for a four -lot subdivision of a 3.8313 acre site, to entail the construction of four professional office buildings, with associated parking, pedestrian walkways, and landscaping features, situated along the shore of a portion of a lake. Two of the lots have frontage on Cantrell Rd.; two will take their access by way of access easements across the Cantrell Rd. fronting lots. A cross -access easement is to be platted along the internal drives to link the parking areas associated with each of the buildings, and maintenance of the drive system is to be provided for in the Bill of Assurance. Each of the lots will be the site of a professional office L FILE Z- - building. Three of the buildings are to be single -story structures, each with approximately 2400 square feet. One building is to be a story -and -a -half structure, and will contain approximately 5,000 square feet. The architecture of the buildings will be residential in character and scale, with roofs being hipped and walls being brick finishes. A gazebo is proposed to be located on a peninsula along the lake shore. The internal pedestrian walkway system will link the various office buildings and parking lots, as well as the landscape structure and features. No connection to abutting properties of the internal walkway system is proposed, and no sidewalk is proposed to be provided along Cantrell Rd., the applicant noting that there are no sidewalks along Cantrell Rd. to which a sidewalk along the applicant's frontage would connect. A driveway for each of the Cantrell Rd. fronting lots is proposed. it is the intent of the applicant toll preserve as much of the natural setting of the site,, and to "maintain as many of the trees as possible", and to "maintain the lake as a natural site amenity". Maintenance of the lake is to be provided for in the Bill of Assurance, and means will be taken during construction to protect water quality. The applicant proposes to provide extensive landscaping around the buildings and to screen the parking areas. No fencing or dense evergreen screening is proposed along the south property line along the lake shore, since imposing the land use buffer would "deny the owners, their employees, and visitors to the site the enjoyment of the most valuable visual asset of the property." Stormwater detention is to be provided on site on a development -wide basis. Site lighting is to be by low-level decorative street lamp type fixtures on 12 to 15 foot tall posts. Street signage will be limited to two, low -lighted monument signs located at each access point on Cantrell Rd. Uses are anticipated to be dental offices; however, approval of all uses by right in the 0-2 zoning district are requested. A. PROPOSAL RE UEST: Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a planned development. Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a variance to permit two entrance drives from Cantrell Rd. Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a waiver of the sidewalk requirement along Cantrell Rd. and along the interior driveways. Planning Commission approval is requested for a common access easement and private interior drives for access to interior lots. 2 0 FILE Z -(Cont.) Planning Commission approval is requested for a waiver of the land use buffer along the south property line. B. EXI TI G C ITION The property is wooded, with a drive and home located along the west shoreline of the on-site lake. The topography ranges from the lake elevation of 384 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) to approximately an elevation of 396 feet MSL along Cantrell Rd. The existing zoning of the tract is R-2. The R-2 zoning district includes land to the east and south, although the land to the east is occupied by a non -conforming commercial use. Residential lots abut the site to the south, across the lake. Land to the west is zoned 0-2. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Public works comments: The property is on Ison Creek, beyond the Flood Insurance study. The Corps and ADPC&E should be provided with sketch plan information and be allowed to comment, as applicable. Flow information on the stream and lake should be available for review. A grading permit and base flood information' with finished floor elevations is required prior to construction. Driveway grades shall conform to Ordinance requirements. Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department must approve driveway locations and design. Stormwater dentition analysis is required. A 6 foot wide sidewalk along the Cantrell Rd. frontage of the site is required. Water works comments that on-site fire protection will be required. PRZ backflow prevention will be required if the buildings contain doctors' offices. In addition to the normal connection charges, a pro -rata frontage charge of $15 per foot applies. Wastewater comments that sewer is available at the site. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement along the entire perimeter of the subdivision. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. 3 s FILE Z- n - Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that easements will be required. The Fire Department approved the submittal. D. I E LE AL TE H ICAL DE I Staff has been told that there is a deed restriction granted by the developer of the Piedmont area which limits uses of all property the developer sold to residential uses, and that the Piedmont property owners are prepared to enforce this deed restriction. The City, however, is not a party to such deed restrictions, and is not bound by them in zoning matters. The land owners are responsible for enforcing such deed restrictions by appropriate legal means. It is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission to act as an enforcement agent for the Piedmont property owners, or to base zoning decisions on such private agreements. The Subdivision Regulations, Sec. 31-231, requires that all lots front on a public street, unless the Planning Commission approves a private street in a private access easement. Two of the lots do not front on a public street; therefore, the applicant has asked for access to be provided by access easements and a private internal street system. The applicant requests approval of a variance to permit two .entrance drives from Cantrell Rd. Sec. 31-210 provides that, for lots fronting on highways such as Cantrell Rd., shared or common driveway points are encouraged for lots that are less then 300 feet in frontage, and that sites shall be limited to one driveway or access point for each 300 feet of lot frontage. The applicant has provided for a shared access to the lots, but has requested two access points for the 512.5 feet of lot frontage, with the drive access points being 300 feet apart. Sec. 31-209 requires a sidewalk be provided along the Cantrell Rd. frontage of the site. The applicant has requested a waiver of this requirement, noting that there are no sidewalks on abutting properties on the south side of Cantrell Rd. Sec. 31-287 states that, where an office subdivision requires the creation of an internalized circulation system to provide access to multiple lots, the Planning Commission may authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of public commercial streets, and that the design of service easements shall be built to public street design standards. The applicant has an internal pedestrian circulation system provided,.and seeks a wavier from the requirement to provide sidewalks along the interior driveways. 4 FILL Z- n When office developments abut single-family zoned property, a land use buffer is required. Since the lake forms the buffer between the office development and the residences to the south, a waiver of the land use buffer along the south property line is requested. Sec. 31-89 requires that: a) a storm drainage analysis, showing drainage data for all watercourses entering and leaving the plat boundaries be furnished. Any property within the floodway or floodplain should be noted. A preliminary storm drainage plan, incorporating proposed easement dimensions and typical ditch sections, should be included. b) the certification be shown which certifies that the plat has been surveyed and duly filed for record in the offices of the state surveyor and the county circuit clerk/recorder within the last 7 years. Sec. 31-91 provides a suggested verbiage for the Certification of Preliminary Surveying Accuracy which includes this language. c) proposed PAGIS monuments be shown. Sec. 31-91 requires that the Certificates be executed. Sec. 36-502 requires, for business and professional office uses, 1 parking space be provided for each 400 square feet of gross square feet of building size. There are three, 2400 square foot buildings, each requiring 6 parking spaces. There is one 5000 square foot building, requiring 13 spaces. At total of 31 parking spaces is required to be provided on the site; 55 spaces are provided. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist comments that: a) Areas set aside for interior, building, and perimeter landscaping are in compliance with and exceed the Landscaping Ordinance requirements. b) If dumpsters are to be used, they must be located on the site plan, and must be screened on three sides by an 8 foot high wood fence or wall. c) A 6 foot high opaque wood fence, with its structural supports facing inward, or dense evergreen plantings, are required to screen the business activity from adjacent residential zoned property to the south, east, and west. `7 FILE Z- n d) The Highway 10 Overlay District Ordinance requires a sprinkler system to water plants. E. ANALYSIS: The Planning staff reports that the requested Planned Development is located in the River Mountain District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Transition Zone". The request, then, is in conformance with the Plan. The plans and required documentation are substantially complete, with very minimal deficiencies remaining to be addressed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the planned development. Staff recommends approval of a common access easement and private interior drives for access to interior lots. Comments and a recommendation from the Traffic Engineer need to be heard on the matter of the requested variance to permit two entrance drives from Cantrell Rd. Comments and a recommendation from the Traffic Engineer need to be heard on the matter of the requested waiver of the sidewalk requirement along Cantrell Rd. and along the interior driveways. Staff recommends approval of the waiver of the land use buffer along the south property line abutting the lake. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 12, 1995) Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, was present. Staff reviewed with the Committee members the nature of the planned development request. The Committee reviewed the discussion outline issues with Mr. Riggins. Staff reported to Mr. Riggins the assertions by Piedmont residents that the office use of the property is not permitted in their deeds, and cautioned Mr. Riggins to investigate this issue. It was noted by staff, however, that the City would not enforce any deed or Bill of Assurance restrictions. Mr. Riggins reported that all issues raised in the discussion outline would be addressed, and that amended drawings and information would be furnished to staff. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. 6 L ILg Z- (Cont.) LANNING C ISSION A TIO : (OCTOBER 31, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that the hearing of this item be deferred until the December 12, 1995 Commission meeting. Staff reported, however, that the Commission Bylaws yeq►sire requests for deferral be submitted at least five (5) working days prior to the Commission hearing, and that the request for deferral had been made on Friday, October 27th., two (2) working days prior to the hearing. A waiver of the Bylaws provision, staff explained, would need to be approved by the Commission. Commissioner Putnam, noting that several persons were in attendance at the meeting who were in opposition to the requested Planned Development zoning, asked if it might be appropriate to allow the objectors to present their viewpoint. Mr. Brent Peterson, a spokesperson for the group of Piedmont neighbors, said that the neighbors would not object to a deferral, and that the deferral would allow them to review the requested rezoning. A motion was made and seconded to waive the Bylaws provision requiring submission of deferral requests at least five (5) working days prior the Commission hearing, and the waiver was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. The deferral remained on the Consent Agenda for deferral, as presented by staff, and the deferral was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted a letter, dated November 17, 1995, asking that the item be deferred until the Subdivision agenda of January 30, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The requested deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for approval of the deferral, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996) Staff reported that, immediately prior to the meeting, Mr. Frank Riggins, the applicant's representative, and Mr. Hal Kemp, the attorney for the Piedmont neighborhood, had reported to staff that the two parties would be able to come to an amicable agreement for development of the PD -0 if another deferral could be approve. The commission was asked by Mr. Kemp to approve an 7 FILE Z -(Cont.) additional deferral, until the March 14, 1996 Commission hearing, to permit the remaining issues to be resolved. The Commission approved placing the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral -.with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions; then, with the approval of the Consent Agenda, the item was deferred, as requested by the Piedmont neighborhood with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that the abutting property owners' attorney, Mr. Hal Kemp, had submitted an agreement reached between the applicants and his clients, in which the land use, building type, future development, location of buildings, site lighting, building height, and surface drainage design were subject to the abutting residents' approval, and that the conditions of the agreement were to be made a part of the PD -0 requirements. Staff reported that Mr. Kemp indicated that the abutting residents supported the application, with the conditions which had been agreed to. Staff reported that staff had confirmed with Mr. Kemp and with Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, that the surface drainage from the parking lots and drives will be collected in the parking lots and carried by pipe to below the lake; that surface drainage from the lawn between the buildings and the lake will drain into the lake. Staff reported that there were no further issues which remain to be resolved, and recommended approval of the PD -O, of the access easement to provide drive access across Lot 3 for access to Lot 2, of the two access drives from Cantrell Rd., and of the waiver of the land use buffer along the lake front. Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, was present. Mr. Riggins presented the applicant's request, presenting a site plan which reflected the agreed -to conditions. Mr. Riggins confirmed staff's comments regarding the neighbors' and applicants' agreement, and indicated that, as staff had reported, the conditions of the agreement were to be made part of the application. Commissioner Brandon wanted confirmation that there would be no damage or pollution of the lake, to which Mr. Riggins responded that this concern and been addressed in the agreement and would be dealt with through submission of the Erosion Control Plan presented to Public Works. He added that the developers of the site would be responsible for the integrity of the lake and for any damage that was caused by them. Commissioner Lichty wanted an explanation on the effect of the cited agreement. Mr. Hal Kemp, the abutting property owners' attorney, explained that, although the development agreement is a private covenant between the affected residential property owners whom he 8 FILE NO.: Z-6060 (Con represents and the office park developers, it is also being made part of the planned development application, and will be enforceable as any other conditions of the planned development. He added that the development agreement will be executed by the affected parties and filed with the County Recorder. It will, he said, be enforceable by the Piedmont residential property owners through the courts, if there is a breach of the terms of the agreement by the developers. Commissioner Adcock, addressing the Piedmont residential property owners who were in attendance at the Commission meeting, wanted confirmation from these residents that, indeed, Mr. Kemp was correctly representing their viewpoint, to which the residents assented. Commissioner Hawn wanted confirmation that there was no other opposition to the requested planned development from other Piedmont residents who were not a party to the agreement, to which Chairperson Woods responded that there had been no registration cards presented from anyone in opposition to the proposed development. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the planned development and of the requested variances and waiver. The motion was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 9 March 14 , ,19 9 6 , � ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z -605A NAME: PIEDMONT OFFICE PARR -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - OFFICE LOCATION: ATION: On the south side of Cantrell Rd., approximately 0.1 mile east of Sam Peck Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: DR. GENE GINES, ERIC HUTCHINSON, & Frank Riggins DR. JOHN DANIELS THE MEHLBURGER FIRM 14710 Cantrell Rd. P. O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72203 868-4140 375-5331 AREA: 3.8 ACRES ER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING• R-2 PROPOSED USES: Professional Offices PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSQS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES RE UESTED: 1) Approval of a common access easement and private interior drives for access to interior lots. 2) Approval of a variance to permit two entrance drives from Cantrell Rd. 3) Approval of a waiver of the sidewalk requirement along Cantrell Rd. and along the interior driveways. 4) Approval of a waiver of the land use buffer along the south property line. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Proposed is a planned development for a four -lot subdivision of a 3.8313 acre site, to entail the construction of four professional office buildings, with associated parking, pedestrian walkways, and landscaping features, situated along the shore of a portion of a lake. Two of the lots have frontage on Cantrell Rd.; two will take their access by way of access easements across the Cantrell Rd. fronting lots. A cross -access easement is to be platted along the internal drives to link the parking areas associated with each of the buildings, and maintenance of the drive system is to be provided for in the Bill of Assurance. March 14'JI 19 9 6 SUBDIVISIQAI ITEM NO.: H(Cont.)FILE Z - 6Q60 Each of the lots will be the site of a professional office building. Three of the buildings are to be single -story structures, each with approximately 2400 square feet. One building is to be a story -and -a -half structure, and will contain approximately 5,000 square feet. The architecture of the buildings will be residential in character and scale, with roofs being hipped and walls being brick finishes. A gazebo is proposed to be located on a peninsula along the lake shore. The internal pedestrian walkway system will link the various office buildings and parking lots, as well as the landscape structure and features. No connection to abutting properties of the internal walkway system is proposed, and no sidewalk is proposed to be provided along Cantrell Rd., the applicant noting that there are no sidewalks along Cantrell Rd. to which a sidewalk along the applicant's frontage would connect. A driveway for each of the Cantrell Rd. fronting lots is proposed. It is the intent of the applicant to "preserve as much of the natural setting of the site,, and to "maintain as many of the trees as possible", and to "maintain the lake as a natural site amenity". Maintenance of the lake is to be provided for in the Bill of Assurance, and means will be taken during construction to protect water quality. The applicant proposes to provide extensive landscaping around the buildings and to screen the parking areas. No fencing or dense evergreen screening is proposed along the south property line along the lake shore, since imposing the land use buffer would "deny the owners, their employees, and visitors to the site the enjoyment of the most valuable visual asset of the property.' Stormwater detention is to be provided on site on a development -wide basis. Site lighting is to be by low-level decorative street lamp type fixtures on 12 to 15 foot tall posts. Street signage will be limited to two, low -lighted monument signs located at each access point on Cantrell Rd. Uses are anticipated to be dental offices; however, approval of all uses by right in the 0-2 zoning district are requested. A. PROPOSAL RE UEST: Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a planned development. Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a variance to permit two entrance drives from Cantrell Rd. Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a waiver of the sidewalk requirement along Cantrell Rd. and along the interior driveways. 2 Marcs} 14', 159 6 SUBDIVISION i IT O.: B Cont. FILE NO.: Z-5460 Planning Commission approval is requested for a common access easement and private interior drives for access to interior lots. Planning Commission approval is requested for a waiver of the land use buffer along the south property line. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is wooded, with a drive and .home located along the west shoreline of the on-site lake. The topography ranges from the lake elevation of 384 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) to approximately an elevation of 396 feet MSL along Cantrell Rd. The existing zoning of the tract is R-2. The R-2 zoning district includes land to the east and south, although the land to the east is occupied by a non -conforming commercial use. Residential lots abut the site to the south, across the lake. Land to the west is zoned 0-2. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Public works comments: The property is on Ison Creek, beyond the Flood Insurance study. The Corps and ADPC&E should be provided with sketch plan information and be allowed to comment, as applicable. Flow information on the stream and lake should be available for review. A grading permit -and base flood information with finished floor elevations is required prior to construction. Driveway grades shall conform to Ordinance requirements. Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department must approve driveway locations and design. Stormwater dentition analysis is required. A 6 foot wide sidewalk along the Cantrell Rd. frontage of the site is required. Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be required. PRZ backflow prevention will be required if the buildings contain doctors' offices. In addition to the normal connection charges, a pro -rata frontage charge of $15 per foot applies. wastewater comments that sewer is available at the site. 3 March 14,,1996, SUBDIVISxaN It. ITEM Na.: B -(Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z-6060 Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement along the entire perimeter of the subdivision. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that easements will be required. The Fire Department approved the submittal. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL LDE$IG : Staff has been told that there is a deed restriction granted by the developer of the Piedmont area which limits uses of all property the developer sold to residential uses, and that the Piedmont property owners are prepared to enforce this deed restriction. The City, however, is not a party to such deed restrictions, and is not bound by them in zoning matters. The land owners are responsible for enforcing such deed restrictions by appropriate legal means. It is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission to act as an enforcement agent for the Piedmont property owners, or to base zoning decisions on such private agreements. The Subdivision Regulations, Sec. 31-231, requires that all lots front .on a public street, unless the Planning Commission approves a private street in a private access easement. Two of the lots do not front on a public street; therefore, the applicant has asked for access to be provided by access easements and a private internal street system. The applicant requests approval of a variance to permit two entrance drives from Cantrell Rd. Sec. 31-210 provides that, for lots fronting on highways such as Cantrell Rd., shared or common driveway points are encouraged for lots that are less then 300 feet in frontage, and that sites shall be limited to one driveway or access point for each 300 feet of lot frontage. The applicant has provided for a shared access to the lots, but has requested two access points for the 512.5 feet of lot frontage, with the drive access points being 300 feet apart. Sec. 31-209 requires a sidewalk be provided along the Cantrell Rd. frontage of the site. The applicant has requested a waiver of this requirement, noting that there are no sidewalks on abutting properties on the south side of Cantrell Rd. Sec. 31-287 states that, where an office subdivision requires the creation of an internalized circulation system to provide access to multiple lots, the Planning Commission 4 March 14, 1996 S Hsi DIVISIQN ITEM N S n FILE NG.: Z -6f]60 may authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of public commercial streets, and that the design of service easements shall be built to public street design standards. The applicant has an internal pedestrian circulation system provided, and seeks a wavier from the requirement to provide sidewalks along the interior driveways. When office developments abut single-family zoned property, a land use buffer is required. Since the lake forms the buffer between the office development and the residences to the south, a waiver of the land use buffer along the south property line is requested. Sec. 31-89 requires that: a) a storm drainage analysis, showing drainage data for all watercourses entering and leaving the plat boundaries be furnished. Any property within the floodway or floodplain should be noted. A preliminary storm drainage plan, incorporating proposed easement dimensions and typical ditch sections, should be included. b) the certification be shown which certifies that the plat has been surveyed and duly filed for record in the offices of the state surveyor and the county circuit clerk/recorder within the last 7 years. Sec. 31-91 provides a suggested verbiage for the Certification of Preliminary Surveying Accuracy which includes this language. c) proposed PAGIS monuments be shown. Sec. 31-91 requires that the Certificates be executed. Sec. 36-502 requires, for business and professional office uses, 1 parking space be provided for each 400 square feet of gross square feet of building size. There are three, 2400 square foot buildings, each requiring 6 parking spaces. There is one 5000 square foot building, requiring 13 spaces. At total of 31 parking spaces is required to be provided on the site; 55 spaces are provided. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist comments that: a) Areas set aside for interior, building, and perimeter landscaping are in compliance with and exceed the Landscaping Ordinance requirements. 5 march -14, 1996 SUBDIVISID L ITEM N B nt. FILE N . Z-5060 b) If dumpsters are to be used, they must be located on the site plan, and must be screened on three sides by an 8 foot high wood fence or wall. c) A 6 foot high opaque wood fence, with its structural supports facing inward, or dense evergreen plantings, are required to screen the business activity from adjacent residential zoned property to the south, east, and west. d) The Highway 10 Overlay District Ordinance requires a sprinkler system to water plants. E. ANALYSIS• The Planning staff reports that the requested Planned Development is located in the River Mountain District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Transition Zone". The request, then, is in conformance with the Plan. The plans and required documentation are substantially complete, with very minimal deficiencies remaining to be addressed. F. STAFF RECOMMENLiATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the planned development. Staff recommends approval of a common access easement and private interior drives for access to interior lots. Comments and a recommendation from the Traffic Engineer need to be heard on the matter of the requested variance to permit two entrance drives from Cantrell Rd. Comments and a recommendation from the Traffic Engineer need to be heard on the matter of the requested waiver of the sidewalk requirement along Cantrell Rd. and along the interior driveways. Staff recommends approval of the waiver of the land use buffer along the south property line abutting the lake. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 12, 1995) Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, was present. Staff reviewed with the Committee members the nature of the planned development request. The Committee reviewed the discussion outline issues with Mr. Riggins. Staff reported to Mr. Riggins the assertions by Piedmont residents that the office use of the 6 March 14 , . 19 9 6 . 1. SVBDIVISIgN ITEM H(Cont.FILE Z-6060 property is not permitted in their deeds, and cautioned Mr. Riggins to investigate this issue. It was noted by staff, however, that the City would not enforce any deed or Bill of Assurance restrictions. Mr. Riggins reported that all issues raised in the discussion outline would be addressed, and that amended drawings and information would be furnished to staff. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIOi+: (OCTOBER 31, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that the hearing of this item be deferred until the December 12, 1995 Commission meeting. Staff reported, however, that the Commission Bylaws require requests for deferral be submitted at least five (5) working days prior to the Commission hearing, and that the request for deferral had been made on Friday, October 27th., two (2) working days prior to the hearing. A waiver of the Bylaws provision, staff explained, would need to be approved by the Commission. Commissioner Putnam, noting that several persons were in attendance at the meeting who were in opposition to the requested Planned Development zoning, asked if it might be appropriate to allow the objectors to present their viewpoint. Mr. Brent Peterson, a spokesperson for the group of Piedmont neighbors, said that the neighbors would not object to a deferral, and that the deferral would allow them to review the requested rezoning. A motion was made and seconded to waive the Bylaws provision requiring submission of deferral requests at least five (5) working days prior the Commission hearing, and the waiver was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, d nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. The deferral remained on the Consent Agenda for deferral, as presented by staff, and the deferral was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted a letter, dated November 17, 1995, asking that the item be deferred until the Subdivision agenda of January 30, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The requested deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for approval of the deferral, and 7 March 14, 1.995 . V� SQHDIVISIOL� ITEM H tcont.FILE Z-6069 approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions; and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996) Staff reported that, immediately prior to the meeting, Mr. Frank Riggins, the applicant's representative, and Mr. Hal Kemp, the attorney for the Piedmont neighborhood, had reported to staff that the two parties would be able to come to an amicable agreement for development of the PD -0 if another deferral could be approve. The Commission was asked by Mr. Kemp to approve an additional deferral, until the March 14, 1996 Commission hearing, to permit the remaining issues to be resolved. The Commission approved placing the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions; then, with the approval of the Consent Agenda, the item was deferred, as requested by the Piedmont neighborhood with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING 90MMISSIO RACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that the abutting property owners' attorney, Mr. Hal Kemp, had submitted an agreement reached between the applicants and his clients, in which the land use, building type, future development, location of buildings, site lighting, building height, and surface drainage design were subject to the abutting residents' approval, and that the conditions of the agreement were to be made a part of the PD -0 requirements. Staff reported that Mr. Kemp indicated that the abutting residents supported the application, with the conditions which had been agreed to. Staff reported that staff had confirmed with Mr. Kemp and with Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, that the surface drainage from the parking lots and drives will be collected in the parking lots and carried by pipe to below the lake; that surface drainage from the lawn between the buildings and the lake will drain into the lake. Staff reported that there were no further issues which remain to be resolved, and recommended approval of the PD -O, of the access easement to provide drive access across Lot 3 for access to Lot 2, of the two access drives from Cantrell Rd., and of the waiver of the land use buffer along the lake front. Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, was present. Mr. Riggins presented the applicant's request, presenting a site plan which reflected the agreed -to conditions. Mr. Riggins confirmed staff's comments regarding the neighbors' and applicants' agreement, and indicated that, as staff had reported, the conditions of the agreement were to be made part of the application. 8 March 14, 1996 SUHDIVISIQ�3 ITEM NO.: B n FILE 7- 909 Commissioner Brandon wanted confirmation that there would be•no damage or pollution of the lake, to which Mr. Riggins responded that this concern and been addressed in the agreement and would be dealt with through submission of the Erosion Control Plan presented to Public works. He added that the developers of the site would be responsible for the integrity of the lake and for any damage that was caused by them. Commissioner Lichty wanted an explanation on the effect of the cited agreement. Mr. Hal Kemp, the abutting property owners' attorney, explained that, although the development agreement is a private covenant between the affected residential property owners whom he represents and the office park developers, it is also being made part of the planned development application, and will be enforceable as any other conditions of the planned development. He added that the development agreement will be executed by the affected parties and filed with the County Recorder. It will, he said, be enforceable by the Piedmont residential property owners through the courts, if there is a breach of the terms of the agreement by the developers. Commissioner Adcock, addressing the Piedmont residential property owners who were in attendance at the Commission meeting, wanted confirmation from these residents that, indeed, Mr. Kemp was correctly representing their viewpoint, to which the residents assented. Commissioner Hawn wanted confirmation that there was no other opposition to the requested planned development from other Piedmont residents who were not a party to the agreement, to which Chairperson Woods responded that there had been no registration cards presented from anyone in opposition to the proposed development. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the planned development and of the requested variances and waiver. The motion was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 9