Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6219-B Staff AnalysisJanuary 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: B.1 FILE NO.: Z -6219-B NAME: Bella Rosa Revised Long -form POD LOCATION: On the Southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Bella Rosa Drive DEVELOPER: HVVY 107 Associates, LLC 3801 Woodland Heights Little Rock, AR 72212 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 319 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 202 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 7.5 Acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES PROPOSED ZONING PROPOSED USE: development NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 PCD FT. NEW STREET: 0 OfficeNVarehouse — Mini -warehouse development Revised PCD Office/ShowroomNVarehouse Mini -warehouse VARIAN Q ESYWAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission previously reviewed and denied a request to rezone the site from R-2, Single-family to POD to allow the site to develop with limited office space, conditioned storage and mini -storage. The proposal included the placement of 102,775 square feet of improvements, containing approximately 18,000 square feet of office and office/warehouse space, including an on-site manager's office and apartment comprising approximately 1,600 square feet. The balance of the project was to be self - storage units. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont. FILE NO.- Z -6219 - The applicant proposed the perimeter of the two buildings located adjacent to Cantrell Road to be constructed of "drivet" wall system over a steel super structure mixed with glass office front. The roof system was to be a flat roof hidden behind a metal parapet. The self -storage units were proposed as metal system over a steel structure with access provided by overhead doors. On March 11, 2004 the Little Rock Planning Commission made a recommendation of approval of a request to redevelop this 7.5 -acre site located on the southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Bella Rosa Drive. The applicant intended to develop the site with a total of 82,800 square feet of office/retail and mini -warehouse buildings. The site was to contain a single building of office/retail containing a total of 29,000 square feet and an office/managers residence for the mini -warehouse development. A second building would contain 28,000 square feet of conditioned storage accessed from interior halls. There were three buildings of stand-alone mini -warehouse buildings containing a total of 25,800 square feet of space. The total building coverage proposed was 34.3 percent with 27 percent of the site designated as landscaped/green space area. The site contained 117 parking spaces with 19 spaces proposed for boat and RV storage. The applicant indicated the days and hours of operation from 7 am to 8 pm seven days per week. The mini -warehouse would have 24-hour access. The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,072 on April 6, 2004, establishing the Bella Rosa Long -form PCD as presented to the Little Rock Planning Commission. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to amend the previously approved POD to add office/showroom/warehouse as allowable activities for the site (currently allowable in 0-3 with a Conditional Use Permit). The previous approval allows 0-3 uses and an allowance for ten percent of the gross floor area as 0-3 accessory uses. No changes are proposed to the approved site plan. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site has been cleared for construction of the new center. The site is relatively flat with a creek running along the western and southern perimeters. The property to the east of the site (across Bella Rosa Drive) is vacant and has been cleared. Further to the west is the Seven Acres Business Park zoned POD and developed with a mix of commercial and office uses. To the southeast are single-family homes adjoining the northern bank of the creek. To the south of the site (across the creek) are vacant lands and single-family homes fronting Bella Rosa Drive. To the west of the proposed site (west of the creek) are also vacant lands fronting Cantrell Road. North of the site are single-family homes on large acreages. 4 January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-B C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association, the Westbury Neighborhood Association, the Westchester Property Owners Association, all residents located within 300 -feet of the site who could be identified and all owners of property located within 200 -feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing staff has received several phone calls concerning the proposed request. D. ISSUESfFECHNICAUDESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Transition for this property. Transition provides for an orderly transition between residential uses and more intense uses. Uses that might be considered in this area are low-density multifamily residential and office uses if proposals are compatible with the quality of life in nearby residential areas. The applicant has applied for a revised POD -Planned Office Development to remove Office from the plan and facilitate an Office, Showroom and Warehouse, which will not add any additional square footage to the development. When comparing zoning permitted uses to the Land Use Plan, the Office Showroom and Warehouse is considered a commercial use, not office, thus not consistent with the area's land use plan. A Land Use Plan amendment is a separate item on this agenda (Item #F — File No. LU04-19-03). This application would normally require a Land Use Plan Amendment. Presently the Planning Staff is reviewing the Land Use Plan along this section of Highway 10. The review has just begun and the Planning staff is still receiving information on the current Highway 10 Land Use Plan. Any change at this time would be premature and possibly detrimental to the study effort. Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial and Bella Rosa is shown as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. The purpose of a Principal Arterial is to connect major traffic generators in an area and not to provide access to adjoining properties. The function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent property and the movement of traffic is considered a secondary purpose. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Existing or proposed Class 1, 11, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. 3 January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-B E. ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to revise the previously approved POD to add an additional use to the site. The applicant's request is to add office/showroom/wa rehouse activities to the site to allow flexibility in the marketing of the site. The current approved site plan includes office/warehouse and 0-3, General Office uses, along with the ten percent accessory uses, as allowable uses. The Zoning Ordinance defines Office/Showroommarehouse as a facility for mixed use with the following characteristics: (1) A showroom for display of product line which does not include items for user purchase, expect within C-3 general commercial district; (2) A storage or warehouse facility which occupies not more than sixty percent of the gross floor areas of the structure; (3) The principal office of the business; (4) Sales to contractors or other businesses installing or delivering to consumer and users. Staff does not feel the addition of "showroom" activities will generate a large amount of additional customer traffic. Contractor's sales would be an allowable use for the site but not a retail paint store. Staff is supportive of the applicant's request to add office/showroom/wa rehouse as an allowable use on the site. The previous approval allowed 0-3 uses with ten percent of the gross floor area being utilized as 0-3 accessory uses to be located in the 29,000 square foot office/retail building. Staff does not feel the addition of office/showroom warehouse as an allowable use for the site changes the character of the development. The applicant has provided a building elevation, which details and gives the appearance an office setting. Staff feels limiting the commercial to ten percent of the gross floor area will not allow the development to become a retail center. Staff does not feel the mini -warehouse portion of the development will have a negative impact on the adjoining properties since the mini -warehouse is located to the rear and screened by the office uses in the front of the development. Staff feels the site will maintain an overall office feel. The applicant has indicated through building elevations the rear of the site will be screened and none of the commercial uses will be visible from Cantrell Road. Only through this scenario does staff feel comfortable allowing this development to locate on this site. The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for the proposed site. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to allow office/showroom/warehouse activities to locate within the development. 12 January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO-: Z -6219-B PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated September 23 2004, requesting the item be deferred to the December 2, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the applicant's request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral- The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 2, 2004) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had filed to notify properties owners as required by the Commission's By-laws. Staff requested the item be deferred to the January 20, 2005 Public Hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to place the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: After further review staff has determined they no longer support the applicant's request to add office/showroom/warehouse to the site. The development was approved with five buildings totaling 82,000 square feet of office/retail and mini -warehouse. The approval included the placement of a 29,000 square foot office/retail building, which would utilize ten percent of the gross floor area with accessory uses as listed in the 0-3, General Office District zoning classification. The second building was to contain 28,000 square feet of conditioned storage accessed from interior halls and three stand along mini -warehouse buildings containing a total of 25,800 square feet of space. The proposed site plan included the placement of 117 parking spaces with 19 spaces proposed for boat and RV storage. The mini -warehouse square footage approved for developed on the site totaled 53,800 square feet. This portion of the development is an intense commercial activity allowable as a by right use in the C-4, Open Display District zoning classification. The current approval allows sixty-five percent of the total square footage allowed on the site to be developed with C-4, General Commercial District activities. The indicated boat and RV storage is also a C-4, General Commercial District uses. 5 January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-B In addition, the accessory uses allowed in the 0-3, General Office District zoning classification are for the most part commercial activities, which total 2,900 square feet allowable in the office/retail building. When combining the two commercial aspects of the development sixty-nine percent of the total square footage currently allowed on the site is commercial in nature and thirty-one percent is office in nature. Staff felt comfortable recommending the development of the site as was previously approved since the office/retail building would screen the mini -warehouse buildings. Also, the developer provided a building elevation, which allowed the site to appear office in character and proposed building materials to compliment the overall design. Staff feels by the addition of office/wareh ' ouse (a Conditional Use *under C-3, General Commercial District and a by right use in C-4, General Commercial District) and office/showroom/wareho use (a Conditional Use under 0-3, General Office District and a by right use in C-3, General Commercial District) to the site only reinforces the commercial aspect of the development. Staff does not feel this location is an appropriate location for a commercial development. The City's Future Land Use Plan indicates the site as Transitional, which allows for office or residential development. Staff feels by allowing the addition of office/wa rehouse and office/showroom/warehouse activities to develop on the site this changes the character of the development and reinforces a commercial development. Staff feels the development should be constructed as was previously approved maintaining the office face along Cantrell Road and Bella Rosa Drive and placing the intense commercial activities within the site, screened from the adjoining roadways by the office/retail building - Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request to add office/warehouse and/or office/showroom/warehouse to the site. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated they had previously indicated support of the proposed request but after further review had determined they could not longer support the request. Staff stated if the development were approved with the added uses the development would be solely a commercial development. Staff stated they felt the development should be utilized as was previously approved to include mini -warehouse development, office development with 0-3 uses as allowable uses and the ten percent gross floor allowance for accessory uses. Mr. Pat McGetrick stated the developers were not requesting a commercial development only the allowance of office/showroom/ warehouse as allowable activities on the site. He stated the development was being developed with 2000 to 5000 square A January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-621 9-B foot units. He stated the developers were not looking for commercial uses to locate on the site. He stated the developers were requesting the addition of uses, which they felt were previously approved. Mr. Gene Pfeifer addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the development was similar to a proposal, which the Commission denied in 1997, which included the development of mini -warehouse on the site. He stated the only difference was the developers were now screening the mini -warehouse development with an office building and presenting the development as an office development. Mr. Pfeifer stated there were flaws with the notification on the original approval. He stated his property was located across Highway 10 and he was not notified. He stated many of the parties involved were the same as was previously involved in 1997 and, many knew his property was located across the road from the proposed development. He stated he understood the list was obtained from an abstract company and the applicant had meet the minimum requirements but he stated the list should be checked by -the applicant and by staff to ensure all parties were notified. Mr. Pfeifer stated the leasing sign outside the development indicated the center as a retail, office and showroom development. He stated the sign was misleading to the public and potential tenants of the development. Mr. Pfeifer requested the Commission deny the request for the added uses. He stated if approved with the additional uses the site would become a commercial center. He stated he felt the development should be utilized as was previously approved with the 0-3, General Office District uses. Mr. Chris Parker addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was representing Mr. Pfeifer as legal counsel. He stated the request did not comply with the Land Use Plan for the site. He stated the site was indicated as Transitional on the Future Land Use Plan which allowed for office and residential. He stated by approving the addition of office/showroom/warehouse to the development would remove any office component. He stated denial of the request would protect the plan. He stated he felt the development was related to timing. He stated the developers had not tried to market the site with the allowed uses and were now requesting to add additional uses to the site. He requested the Commission deny the request to allow the addition of office/showroom warehouse to the allowable uses on the site. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she too felt the developers did not try to market the site with the approved uses. Ms. Bell stated she felt there was already a large amount of commercial uses located on the site with the mini -warehouse. She stated if the Commission allowed the additional uses on the site the development would be potentially 100 percent commercial. 7 January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-B Mr. Murry Mitchell addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated he previously sold the property to the developers. He stated his understanding was the development was approved of office/warehouse uses. He stated the developers were only requesting what was previously approved. Commissioner Rector questioned the previous approval. Staff stated the applicant's cover letter indicated a request for office/warehouse. Staff stated during the process they had indicated they would not support an office/wa rehouse development for the site only the allowance of 0-3, General Office District uses. Commissioner Rector questioned if the applicant amended his application to gain staff support. Staff stated this was their understanding. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the allowed uses. - A motion was made to approve the request to allow the addition of office/showroom/wa rehouse to the site. The motion failed by a vote of 0 aye, 11 noes and 0 absent. �3