HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6881-C Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -6881-C
NAME: McKinstry-Threet Revised Short -form PCD
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Cantrell Road and Townsend Street
DEVELOPER:
Pfeifer Family Limited Partnership #2
Three Financial Centre, Suite 409
Little Rock, AR 72211
FNGINFFR-
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 2.3 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING- PCD
ALLOWED USES: Office and Retail
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Office and Retail — Placement of a wall sign without public street
frontage
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 18,594 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 20,
2001, established the McKinstry-Threet Short -form PCD. The development was to
include a mixed use PCD utilizing 2.4 acres of a 4.19 acre tract located on the north
side of Cantrell Road, east of Black Road. The applicant proposed a 3 -lot development
with one building on each lot. Lot 1 was to contain a one-story 7,200 square foot
building and 37 parking spaces. The use proposed for Lot 1 was an auto service
establishment specializing in tire and battery service. Their services would include
related services such as front-end alignments, shock absorber replacement, etc. No
services related to engine or transmission repair or paint and bodywork were proposed.
The building was oriented such that the garage bay doors would not face Cantrell Road.
IFILE NO.: Z -6881-C (Cont
Lot 2 was proposed to contain a one-story 4800 square foot building and a 25 space
parking lot. The applicant proposed a mix for the building of no less than 25 percent
office and up to 75 percent C-3, General Commercial District uses. The applicant
further defined the use of the building by eliminating the following C-3 uses: Appliance
Repair, Butcher Shop, Cabinet and Woodworking Shop, Church, College Dormitory,
College fraternity or sorority, College, university or seminary, Convenience store with
gas pumps, Convent or monastery, Custom sewing or millinery, Establishment of the
care of alcoholics, neurotic or psychiatric patients, Feed store, Fire station, Hotel or
motel, Lodge or fraternal organization, Multi -family dwellings, Pawnshop, Recycling
facility, automated, Seasonal or temporary sales, outside, Secondhand shop, Service
station, Tax office, Theater, Amusement, commercial (outside), Building materials sales
(open), Bus station and terminal, Car wash, Crematorium, Eating place with drive-in
service, Lawn and garden center open display, Lumberyard, Mini -warehouse, Service
station with limited motor vehicle repair, Small engine repair, Tool and equipment rental
(with outside display), Upholstery shop, furniture.
No more than 1,200 square feet of the building would be an eating place without drive-
in service (restaurant). Lot 3 was proposed to contain a one-story 3,600 square foot
building and a 21 space parking lot. The building was proposed to be utilized as
100 percent office uses.
Lots 2 and 3 would take access from an improved Townsend Street and Lot 1 would
have access from a common access drive shared with the property to the west. Lots 1
and 2 would have a driveway connection.
The site lies within the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The proposed development
was to conform to Highway 10 standards except for two minor points. One corner of the
building on Lot 1 intruded into the 100 foot front yard setback and the landscape strip
along the western perimeter of Lot 1 fell 10 feet below the 25 -foot requirement. The
applicant also proposed to abandon a platted but undeveloped 20 -foot wide street
right-of-way extended east to west through the site.
On Mach 15, 2002, staff presented the Planning Commission at its informal meeting a
revised site plan requesting they offer their opinion as to whether the proposed plan
would require a full revision to the PCD, ie., return to the full Commission and City
Board for approval. The consensus of the Commission was the full revision was not
necessary since the proposal resulted in a decrease in intensity of use and buildings
and the elements such as curb cuts, building setbacks and landscaping remained
unchanged. The Commission did however request the applicant submit a revised site
plan to the Subdivision Committee of the Planning Commission when the final
development plan was completed.
This proposal did not move forward as was presented to the Commission at their March
15, 2002, Informal meeting. An agreement was reached with Twin City Bank, which is
currently located on Lot 1, in early 2003 based on the previously approved site plan.
Twin City Bank has developed on Lot 1 with a slightly larger lot than was originally
proposed.
2
IFILE NO.: Z -6881-C (Cont.
On October 5, 2004, the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,196 revising the
previously approved PCD. The amendment modified the rear and side yard setbacks
for proposed Lots 2 and 3 of the Candlewood East Subdivision. A 15 -foot west side
yard setback and a 15.4 foot east side yard setback were approved for Lot 2. A west
side yard setback of 15 -feet and an east side yard setback of 15.3 feet was approved
for Lot 3. With the reduced side yard setbacks a more densely planted landscape area
would be provided. The approval included a rear yard setback for Lot 2 of 22 -feet and
the front building landscaped area was increased from 4 -feet to 6 -feet.
The revised PCD allowed 3,600 square feet office on Lot 1, 4,640 square feet of
commercial on Lot 2 and 3,148 square feet of office on Lot 3. A total of 11,288 square
feet, of which 4,640 square feet of commercial and 6,748 square feet of office was
approved for the development.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
New Balance has opened a new store in the new retail portion of the
development located at 13900 Cantrell Road on Lot 2. The store requests a
revision to the current PCD zoning to allow signage on the west fagade of the
building. The sign will occupy 24.3 square feet of wall space. The west fagade
does not have direct street frontage, however, it does have visibility from a
nearby access drive. The sign on the west fagade is an important marketing tool
for the New Balance store to identify its location to those potential customers who
cannot see the entrance sign when traveling from the west.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Twin City Bank is located on Lot 1 and buildings have been constructed on Lots
2 and 3. Highland Drive has been constructed complete with curb -gutter and
sidewalk. The area to the east of the site is a tree covered site. The area to the
north of the site houses an office building and a plat for two additional lots was
recently approved. Further west of the site is a commercial shopping node, with
restaurant uses and a grocery store. There are a mixture of uses to the south of
the site both residential and non-residential in nature.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has not revived any comment from area residents. All
property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, all residents located within
300 -feet of the site who could be identified, the Westbury Property Owners
Association, the Secluded Hills Property Owners Association, the
Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners Association and the Pankey
Community Improvement Association were notified of the public hearing.
3
FILE NO.: Z -6881-C {Cont.
D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 5, 2004)
The applicant was not present due to there being no technical issues related to
the proposed request. Staff stated the item had not been routed to the reviewing
agencies. Staff stated the request was to allow signage without public street.
There was no discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to
the full Commission for final action.
E. ANALYSIS:
There were no outstanding issues associated with the request from the April 20,
2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant is proposing the placement
of signage along the western facade of the existing building. The site is located
within the Highway 10 Design Overlay District which has specific development
guidelines for ground mounted signage but wall signage is typically allowed as
per Section 36-557(a) of the City of Little Rock Code of Ordinances. This section
states all on -premise wall signs must face required street frontage except in
complexes where a sign without street frontage would be the only means of
identification for a tenant. The proposed location of the wall signage does not
have public street frontage.
The signage is existing on the western fagade and the site is currently under
enforcement for placement of signage without a permit. The applicant was
issued a permit for the placement of wall signage along the front fagade and the
eastern fagade of the building which have public street frontage. The sign was
placed along the western fagade instead of placing the sign on the eastern
fagade. A notice was issued and the applicant chose to request a revision to the
current PCD zoning in -lieu of removing the sign.
Staff is not supportive of the allowance of the signage without public street
frontage. Staff feels the existing signage located on the front fagade of the
building is adequate to identify the business and allows for adequate visibility.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a
request dated May 11, 2006, requesting a deferral of the item to the June 22, 2006,
public hearing. Staff stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the
Commission's By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. Staff stated they were
supportive of the By-law waiver request and the deferral request.
M
[FILE NO.: Z -6881-C (Cont.
A motion was made to approve the By-law waiver with regard to the late deferral
request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
There as been no change in the application since the previous public hearing. Staff
continues to recommend denial of the applicant's request to allow signage along the
western fagade of the building.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 22, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There was one registered objector
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Mr. David Hamilton
of Seiz Sign Company addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He
stated the sign was a small wall sign occupying only 25 square feet of the fagade area.
He stated the building placement did not allow visibility from the west of the front sign.
He stated if the signage was approved the signage would not result in a greater amount
of allowed signage since the development did not place signage on the eastern facade
where signage was allowed due to the adjacent street.
Mr. Bart Dickinson of New Balance addressed the Commission in support of the
request. He stated the store sign was important to the business since the western sign
was the only way for customers to locate the store. He stated the building was hard for
customers to find because of the curvature of Cantrell Road in the location of the store.
He stated many customers passed the store and were force to turn around and come
back because of visibility issues. He stated the existing vegetation from the east
blocked view of the store and signage.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the
Highway 10 Deign Overlay was very specific on signage. She stated the League of
Women Voters supported the sign ordinance and the Overlay District. She stated in
fairness the Commission should support the existing ordinances in place.
The Commission questioned if a monument sign was in place. The applicant stated
there was a monument sign located along the eastern portion of the property.
Mr. Dickinson stated the building was unique since the building did not parallel the
roadway. He stated the building was angled which did not allow visibility from the west.
He stated the signage did play a role in the decision to locate in the center. He stated
he did not locate in a mall or strip center and preferred a stand alone building to service
the needs of his customers. He stated a number of his customers were medical
61
IFILE NO.: Z -6881-C
patients or elderly who were not able to walk distances to the store and desired pull up
and park in front of the store.
A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes,
5 noes and 1 absent.
A
June 22, 2006
O.: B FILE NO.: Z -6881-C
NAME: McKinstry-Threet Revised Short -form PCD
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Cantrell Road and Townsend Street
DEVELOPER:
Pfeifer Family Limited Partnership #2
Three Financial Centre, Suite 409
Little Rock, AR 72211
FNCIINFFR-
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 2.3 Acres
CURRENT ZONING
ALLOWED USES
NUMBER OF LOTS: 3
PCD
Office and Retail
FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Office and Retail — Placement of a wall sign without public street
frontage
VARIAN C ESNVAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 18,594 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 20,
2001, established the McKinstry-Threet Short -form PCD. The development was to
include a mixed use PCD utilizing 2.4 acres of a 4.19 acre tract located on the north
side of Cantrell Road, east of Black Road. The applicant proposed a 3 -lot development
with one building on each lot. Lot 1 was to contain a one-story 7,200 square foot
building and 37 parking spaces. The use proposed for Lot 1 was an auto service
establishment specializing in tire and battery service. Their services would include
related services such as front-end alignments, shock absorber replacement, etc. No
services related to engine or transmission repair or paint and bodywork were proposed.
June 22, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z -6881-C
The building was oriented such that the garage bay doors would not face Cantrell Road.
Lot 2 was proposed to contain a one-story 4800 square foot building and a 25 space
parking lot. The applicant proposed a mix for the building of no less than 25 percent
office and up to 75 percent C-3, General Commercial District uses. The applicant
further defined the use of the building by eliminating the following C-3 uses: Appliance
Repair, Butcher Shop, Cabinet and Woodworking Shop, Church, College Dormitory,
College fraternity or sorority, College, university or seminary, Convenience store with
gas pumps, Convent or monastery, Custom sewing or millinery, Establishment of the
care of alcoholics, neurotic or psychiatric patients, Feed store, Fire station, Hotel or
motel, Lodge or fraternal organization, Nlulti-family dwellings, Pawnshop, Recycling
facility, automated, Seasonal or temporary sales, outside, Secondhand shop, Service
station, Tax office, Theater, Amusement, commercial (outside), Building materials sales
(open), Bus station and terminal, Car wash, Crematorium, Eating place with drive-in
service, Lawn and garden center open display, Lumberyard, Mini -warehouse, Service
station with limited motor vehicle repair, Small engine repair, Tool and equipment rental
(with outside display), Upholstery shop, furniture.
No more than 1,200 square feet of the building would be an eating place without drive-
in service (restaurant). Lot 3 was proposed to contain a one-story 3,600 square foot
building and a 21 space parking lot. The building was proposed to be utilized as
100 percent office uses.
Lots 2 and 3 would take access from an improved Townsend Street and Lot 1 would
have access from a common access drive shared with the property to the west. Lots 1
and 2 would have a driveway connection.
The site lies within the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The proposed development
was to conform to Highway 10 standards except for two minor points. One corner of the
building on Lot 1 intruded into the 100 foot front yard setback and the landscape strip
along the western perimeter of Lot 1 fell 10 feet below the 25 -foot requirement. The
applicant also proposed to abandon a platted but undeveloped 20 -foot wide street
right-of-way extended east to west through the site.
On Mach 15, 2002, staff presented the Planning Commission at its informal meeting a
revised site plan requesting they offer their opinion as to whether the proposed plan
would require a full revision to the PCD, ie., return to the full Commission and City
Board for approval. The consensus of the Commission was the full revision was not
necessary since the proposal resulted in a decrease in intensity of use and buildings
and the elements such as curb cuts, building setbacks and landscaping remained
unchanged. The Commission did however request the applicant submit a revised site
plan to the Subdivision Committee of the Planning Commission when the final
development plan was completed.
This proposal did not move forward as was presented to the Commission at their March
15, 2002, Informal meeting. An agreement: was reached with Twin City Bank, which is
2
June 22, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B {Cont.} FILE NO.: Z -6881-C
currently located on Lot 1, in early 2003 based on the previously approved site plan.
Twin City Bank has developed on Lot 1 with a slightly larger lot than was originally
proposed.
On October 5, 2004, the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,196 revising the
previously approved PCD. The amendment modified the rear and side yard setbacks
for proposed Lots 2 and 3 of the Candlewood East Subdivision. A 15 -foot west side
yard setback and a 15.4 foot east side yard setback were approved for Lot 2. A west
side yard setback of 15 -feet and an east side yard setback of 15.3 feet was approved
for Lot 3. With the reduced side yard setbacks a more densely planted landscape area
would be provided. The approval included a rear yard setback for Lot 2 of 22 -feet and
the front building landscaped area was increased from 4 -feet to 6 -feet.
The revised PCD allowed 3,600 square feet office on Lot 1, 4,640 square feet of
commercial on Lot 2 and 3,148 square feet of office on Lot 3. A total of 11,288 square
feet, of which 4,640 square feet of commercial and 6,748 square feet of office was
approved for the development.
A. PROPOSAUREQUEST:
New Balance has opened a new store in the new retail portion of the
:development located at 13900 Cantrell Road on Lot 2. The store requests a
revision to the current PCD zoning to allow signage on the west fagade of the
building. The sign will occupy 24.3 square feet of wall space. The west facade
does not have direct street frontage, however, it does have visibility from a
nearby access drive. The sign on the west fagade is an important marketing tool
for the New Balance store to identify its location to those potential customers who
cannot see the entrance sign when traveling from the west.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Twin City Bank is located on Lot 1 and buildings have been constructed on Lots
2 and 3. Highland Drive has been constructed complete with curb -gutter and
sidewalk. The area to the east of the site is a tree covered site. The area to the
north of the site houses an office building and a plat for two additional lots was
recently approved. Further west of the site is a commercial shopping node, with
restaurant uses and a grocery store. There are a mixture of uses to the south of
the site both residential and non-residential in nature.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has not revived any comment from area residents. All
property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, all residents located within
300 -feet of the site who could be identified, the Westbury Property Owners
Association, the Secluded Hills Property Owners Association, the
3
June 22, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6881-C
Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners Association and the Pankey
Community Improvement Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 5, 2004)
The applicant was not present due to there being no technical issues related to
the proposed request. Staff stated the item had not been routed to the reviewing
agencies. Staff stated the request was to allow signage without public street.
There was no discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to
the full Commission for final action.
E. ANALYSIS:
There were no outstanding issues associated with the request from the April 20,
2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant is proposing the placement
of signage along the western fagade of the existing building. The site is located
within the Highway 10 Design Overlay District which has specific development
guidelines for ground mounted signage but wall signage is typically allowed as
per Section 36-557(a) of the City of Little Rock Code of Ordinances. This section
states all on -premise wall signs must face required street frontage except in
complexes where a sign without street frontage would be the only means of
identification for a tenant. The proposed location of the wall signage does not
have public street frontage.
The signage is existing on the western facade and the site is currently under
enforcement for placement of signage without a permit. The applicant was
issued a permit for the placement of wall signage along the front fagade and the
eastern facade of the building which have public street frontage. The sign was
placed along the western fagade instead of placing the sign on the eastern
facade. A notice was issued and the applicant chose to request a revision to the
current PCD zoning in -lieu of removing the sign.
Staff is not supportive of the allowance of the signage without public street
frontage. Staff feels the existing signage located on the front fagade of the
building is adequate to identify the business and allows for adequate visibility.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a
0
June 22, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6881-C
request dated May 11, 2006, requesting a deferral of the item to the June 22, 2006,
public hearing. Staff stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the
Commission's By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. Staff stated they were
supportive of the By-law waiver request and the deferral request.
A motion was made to approve the By-law waiver with regard to the late deferral
request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDA
There as been no change in the application since the previous public hearing. Staff
continues to recommend denial of the applicant's request to allow signage along the
western facade of the building.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JUNE 22, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There was one registered objector
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Mr. David Hamilton
of Seiz Sign Company addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He
stated the sign was a small wall sign occupying only 25 square feet of the facade area.
He stated the building placement did not allow visibility from the west of the front sign.
He stated if the signage was approved the signage would not result in a greater amount
of allowed signage since the development did not place signage on the eastern facade
where signage was allowed due to the adjacent street.
Mr. Bart Dickinson of New Balance addressed the Commission in support of the
request. He stated the store sign was important to the business since the western sign
was the only way for customers to locate the store. He stated the building was hard for
customers to find because of the curvature of Cantrell Road in the location of the store.
He stated many customers passed the store and were force to turn around and come
back because of visibility issues. He stated the existing vegetation from the east
blocked view of the store and signage.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the
Highway 10 Deign Overlay was very specific on signage. She stated the League of
Women Voters supported the sign ordinance and the Overlay District. She stated in
fairness the Commission should support the existing ordinances in place.
5
June 22, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6881-C
The Commission questioned if a monument sign was in place. The applicant stated
there was a monument sign located along the eastern portion of the property.
Mr. Dickinson stated the building was unique since the building did not parallel the
roadway. He stated the building was angled which did not allow visibility from the west.
He stated the signage did play a role in the decision to locate in the center. He stated
he did not locate in a mall or strip center and preferred a stand alone building to service
the needs of his customers. He stated a number of his customers were medical
patients or elderly who were not able to walk distances to the store and desired pull up
and park in front of the store.
A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes,
5 noes and 1 absent.
0
ITEM NO.: 13
NAME: McKinstry-Threet Revised Short -form PCD
Z -6 881-C
LOCATION: located on the Northwest corner of Cantrell Road and Highland Drive
Planning Staff Comments;
1. Provide notification of property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, complete
with the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof of
mailing. The notice must be mailed no later than April 26, 2006. The Office of
Planning and Development must receive the proof of notice no later than May 5,
2006.
2. There is currently a sign located along the western fagade of the building which does
not have a permit. The permit was issued for signage along the eastern fagade of
the building.
Variance/Waivers: None requested.
The site plan was not routed to agencies for comments. The request includes the
placement of signage without public street frontage.
Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plat (to include the
additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, April 26, 2006.
Item # 13