Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6219-C Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -6219-C NAME: Bella Rosa Revised Long -form PCD LOCATION: On the Southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Bella Rosa Drive DEVELOPER: HWY 107 Associates, LLC 3801 Woodland Heights Little Rock, AR 72212 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 7.5 Acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 PCD FT. NEW STREET: 0 OfficeANarehouse — Mini -warehouse development PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Office/ShowroomJWarehouse — Mini -warehouse development VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On November 21, 1996 the Planning Commission 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. On March 11,- 2064 ' 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 as a Planned Commercial Development. The applicant intended to develop the site with a total of 82,800 square feet of office and FILE NO.: Z-621 mini -warehouse buildings. The site was to contain a single building of office 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 and 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 approved site plan contained 117 parking spaces with 19 spaces proposed for boat and RV storage. The days and hours of operation proposed were from 7 am to 8 pm seven days per week. The mini -warehouse would have 24-hour access. The previous approval allows 0-3 uses and an allowance for ten percent of the gross floor area as 0-3 accessory uses. 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. The Little Rock Planning Commission denied a request to revise the previously approved Planned Commercial Development at their January 20, 2005, public hearing. The request was to amend the previously approved PCD to add office/showroom/wa rehouse as allowable activities for the site (currently allowable in 0-3 with a Conditional Use Permit). The request was not appeal to the Board of Directors. 01 A PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant is now proposing a revision to the previously approved Planned Commercial Development to allow additional uses to be considered as allowable uses for the office building. The site has developed with a 29,000 square foot office building and 58,300 square feet of mini -warehouse space. The current allowable uses for the office building are 0-3, General Office District uses along with ten (10) percent of the gross floor area to utilize the Accessory uses as listed in the 0-3 General Office District zoning classification. The request is to revise the approved allowable uses as indicated below: 1. to allow up to 60% of the 29,000 square foot building to be utilized as office, showroom and warehouse space. 2. to allow a health studio or spa use. There are no changes proposed to the previously approved site plan or the hours of operation. The previously approved request to allow ten percent of the gross floor area as listed in the Accessory use of the 0-3, General Office District zoning classification remains as a part of the current request. The proposed additional uses do not conflict with the approved Bill of Assurance for the subdivision. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site has developed with an office development and a mini -warehouse facility. The site is relatively flat with a creek running along the western and southern 2 FILE NO.: Z -6219-C perimeters. The property to the east of the site (across Bella Rosa Drive) is vacant and has been cleared. Further to the east 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) a single-family subdivision is currently under construction and further south are 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 acreage. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident. All property owners located within 200 -feet of the site along with the Westchester and Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. No comment. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENTICOUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Enterg No comment. Center -Point Ene[gy: No comment. SBC: No comment. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 —the Highway 10 Express Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN: Planninq Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Transition for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to a Planned Commercial District for a change of uses for the property. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. RK FILE NO.- Z -6219-C Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan and Bella Rosa is shown as a local street. Both may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas, not to provide access to adjacent properties. Curb cuts should be limited to improve traffic flow. The primary function of a Local Commercial Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Commercial Streets are built to Collector standards because of adjacent commercial zoning. Biocle Plan: There is a Class 1 bike route to the northeast along a creek on the north side of Cantrell approximately 750 feet away. Cily 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. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 8, 2005). The applicant was not present representing the request. Staff presented the item indicating there were few outstanding issues related to the request. Staff stated the request was to change the use mix of the existing development. Staff stated the Commission reviewed a request in January to allow the site to develop as an office, showroom and warehouse development. Staff stated the current request was different in that the request was to allow 60 percent of the site a's office, showroom and warehouse uses. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H, ANALYSIS: There were no outstanding issues associated with the request remaining from the December 8, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant is proposing to revise the previously approved PCD to add additional uses to the site. The applicant's request is to add office, showroom and warehouse activities to the site to allow flexibility in the marketing of the site. The current approved plan for the office building includes 0-3, General Office uses, along with the ten percent Accessory uses. The Zoning Ordinance defines Office, Showroom and Warehouse 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. 4 FILE NO.: Z -6219 - Staff is not supportive of the applicant's request. The development was approved with five buildings totaling 82,800 square feet of office and mini -warehouse. The approval included the placement of a 29,000 square foot office building, which would utilize 10 percent of the gross floor areas with Accessory uses as listed in the 0-3, General Office District zoning classification. The second buildings was to contain 28,000 square feet of conditioned storage access from interior halls and three stand alone 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 for boat and RV storage. The mini -warehouse square footage approved for the development 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 to be developed with C-4, General Commercial District activities. The indicated boat and RV storage is also a C-4, General Commercial District use not included in the total overall percentage of commercial activity. In addition, the accessory uses allowed in ' the 0-3, General Office District zoning classification are for the most part commercial activities, which totals 2,900 square feet. When combining the two commercial aspects of the development, sixty-nine percent of the total square footage allows commercial type activities leaving only thirty-two percent as office uses. The current request would potentially allow 17,400 square feet to be utilized as office, showroom and warehouse space and commercial type use. This would increase the allowable commercial activities on the site to a total of eighty-six percent leaving only 10,800 square feet of office space. Staff does not feel this location is appropriate for a "commercial development". The original basis of staffs support of the proposed development was for the development to appear office from the roadway, screening the intense aspect of the development (the mini -warehouse). Staff felt if the development appeared as an office development, limiting the uses as was previously approved, the development would be appropriate for the site. The City's Future Land Use Plan indicates the site as Transitional, which allows for office or residential development. Staff feels allowing the addition of office, showroom and warehouse activities to develop on the site changes the character of the development and reinforces a commercial development. Staff feels the development should utilize the uses as were previously approved; maintaining the office uses along Cantrell Road and Bella Rosa Drive and placing the intense commercial activities within the site, screened from the adjoining roadways by the office building. 5 FILE NO.: Z -6219-C (Cont.) L STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 5, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff stated they had received a formal request from the applicant for a deferral. Staff stated the request was received on January 4, 2006, which was not within the time frame required by the Planned Commission by-laws. Staff stated the deferral would require a waiver of the by-laws to allow the deferral. Mr. Stephen Giles addressed the Commission on the merits of the deferral request. He stated he was recently retained as council by the developers and he needed additional time to be brought up to speed. He stated with the additional time he would be able to work with staff and the opposition to potentially resolve outstanding issues and concerns. Mr. Gene Pfeifer addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed deferral. He stated he felt the developers had ample time between filing the application and the public hearing to retain council and meet with concerned neighbors. He stated he had arranged to be in town specifically for this meeting and was opposed to any deferral. He stated he felt it an imposition on the citizenry to allow a deferral at such a late date when many had taken off work and come down for a public hearing. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the deferral request. She stated it was important to follow the rules of order and conduct meeting accordingly. She stated allowing last minute deferrals strained the citizen input process and discouraged citizens from participating in the public hearing process. A motion was made to approve the deferral request. The motion failed by a vote,of 10 noes, 1 ayes and 0 absent. Staff presented the requested rezoning with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated the proposed development was considered by the Commission in January of 2005, and the request was not a great deal different than the previous proposal. Mr. Giles addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the development would not be commercial. He stated the center would maintain the existing look and continue to look and feel like an office development. He stated the tenant mix would be such that the uses would be low impact uses such as a dental supply company. He stated there were be no end user purchase from the site. He stated with additional time he could work with staff to determine if enhanced screening and additional landscaping would give the development a better feel and screen the uses. He stated with additional time he could work with staff to determine if there was an office mix that would be acceptable to staff. �-9 FILE NO.: Z -6219-C (Cont Mr. Gene Pfeifer addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the Commercial Nodes had been established along Highway 10 and Bella Rosa and Highway 10 was not a commercial node intersection. He stated he did not feel mini -warehouse was envisioned for Highway 10 when the Design Overlay District was created. He stated the Highway 10 Plan did not allow for stripping out of Cantrell Road. He stated the intent by the developers was to rezone the site to commercial to create a commercial node at the intersection of the two roadways. He stated the development was constructed as an office warehouse development. He questioned what office would need an overhead door. Mr. Pfeifer stated the press releases indicated the site with 29,000 square feet of commercial space. He stated the commercial space being advertised was the office space the applicant's were now requesting for rezoning to office showroom warehouse. He stated the restaurant had utilized all the available commercial space within the development. He stated the applicant's had indicated there were no additional changes to the development. He stated the restaurant was staying open late and questioned if the hours of operation were approved as a closing of 8:00 pm why the restaurant was not being required to adhere to the zoning. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she did not feel the proposed request was consistent with the Transitional zone. She stated the original intent was to screen the mini -warehouse with the office development and she felt the office building did act as a screen. She ,stated with the allowance of the commercial uses the character of the development would be changed. She stated a commercial development was inconsistent with the City's Land Use Plan. Mr. Giles stated he would like to address the concerns of the opposition. He stated the development would not be a commercial development and would not create a commercial node. He stated the proposed uses of the development were not high volume traffic generators. He stated the request was not retail uses and not a shopping center. He stated the restaurant was a neighborhood use. Mr. Pete Hornibrook addressed the Commission on behalf of the owners. He stated he was involved in the sale of the property and the development of the site. He stated the site was constructed as a commerce center not a commercial center. He stated the proposed uses of the site included uses for office, showroom and warehousing activities. He stated there would be limited customer traffic to the site and there would be no carrying of merchandise from the site. There was a lengthy discussion from the Commission and staff concerning the definition of and examples of office, showroom and warehousing activities. The Commission questioned the location of a facility similar to the proposed development. Staff could not give an example of a facility. Staff stated something similar would be a medical supplies facility. Staff stated if the developer were proposing a catalogue sales business then there would not be an issue. The Commission questioned if product could be on display staff stated no product only catalogue sales. Mr. Hornibrook stated the proposed use was an allowable use under the 0-3 zoning district as a Conditional Use. He stated the developers were not requesting to change 7 FILE NO.: Z-621 9-C the site to a commercial development. He stated the developers would be willing to limit the development to no product carryout from the site. He stated he had met with two neighborhood associations in the area and the immediate neighbors. He stated there was little opposition to the proposed request. A motion was made to approve the request as filed. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 5 noes and 1 absent. January 5, 2006 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.' Z -6219-C NAME: Bella Rosa Revised Long -form PCD 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 10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 7.5 Acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 PCD FT. NEW STREET- 0 OfficeMarehouse — Mini -warehouse development PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Office/Showroom/Wa rehouse — Mini -warehouse development VARIAN CESMAIVE RS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On November 21, 1996 the Planning Commission 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/wa rehouse 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. 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 as a Planned Commercial Development. The January 5, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-C applicant intended to develop the site with a total of 82,800 square feet of office and mini -warehouse buildings. The site was to contain a single building of office 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 and 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 approved site plan contained 117 parking spaces with 19 spaces proposed for boat and RV storage. The days and hours of operation proposed were from 7 am to 8 prn seven days per week. The mini -warehouse would have 24-hour access. The previous approval allows 0-3 uses and an allowance for ten percent of the gross floor area as 0-3 accessory uses. 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. The Little Rock Planning Commission denied a request to revise the previously approved Planned Commercial Development at their January 20, 2005, public hearing. The request was to amend the previously approved PCD to add office/showroom/warehouse as allowable activities for the site (currently allowable in 0-3 with a Conditional Use Permit). The request was not appeal to the Board of Directors. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now proposing a revision to the previously approved Planned Commercial Development to allow additional uses to be considered as allowable uses for the office building. The site has developed with a 29,000 square foot office building and 58,300 square feet of mini -warehouse space. The current allowable uses for the office building are 0-3, General Office District uses along with ten (10) percent of the gross floor area to utilize the Accessory uses as listed in the 0-3 General Office District zoning classification. The request is to revise the approved allowable uses as indicated below: 1. to allow up to 60% of the 29,000 square foot building to be utilized as office, showroom and warehouse space. 2. to allow a health studio or spa use. There are no changes proposed to the previously approved site plan or the hours of operation. The previously approved request to allow ten percent of the gross floor area as listed in the Accessory use of the 0-3, General Office District zoning classification remains as a part of the current request. The proposed additional uses do not conflict with the approved Bill of Assurance for the subdivision. 2 January 5, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-C B. EXISTING CONDITIONS - The site has developed with an office development and a mini -warehouse facility. 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 east 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) a single-family subdivision is currently under construction and further south are 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 acreage. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this wriiting, staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident. All property owners located within 200 -feet of the site along with the Westchester and Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. No comment. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment. Center -Point EneLgy: No comment. SBC: No comment. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planninq: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 —the Highway 10 Express Route. K January5,2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-C. F A] ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Transition for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to a Planned Commercial District for a change of uses for the property. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan and Bella Rosa is shown as a local street. Both may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas, not to provide access to adjacent properties. Curb cuts should be limited to improve traffic flow. The primary function of a Local Commercial Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Commercial Streets are built to Collector standards because of adjacent commercial zoning. Bicycle Plan: There is a Class 1 bike route to the northeast along a creek on the north side of Cantrell approximately 750 feet away, 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. Landscape: No comment. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 8, 2005) The applicant was not present representing the request. Staff presented the item indicating there were few outstanding issues related to the request. Staff stated the request was to change the use mix of the existing development. Staff stated the Commission reviewed a request in January to allow the site to develop as an office, showroom and warehouse development. Staff stated the current request was different in that the request was to allow 60 percent of the site as office, showroom and warehouse uses. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. 4 January 5, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-C H. ANALYSIS: There were no outstanding issues associated with the request remaining from the December 8, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant is proposing to revise the previously approved PCD to add additional uses to the site. The applicant's request is to add office, showroom and warehouse activities to the site to allow flexibility in the marketing of the site. The current approved plan for the office building includes 0-3, General Office uses, along with the ten percent Accessory uses. The Zoning Ordinance defines Office, Showroom and Warehouse 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 is not supportive of the applicant's request. The development was approved with five buildings totaling 82,800 square feet of office and mini -warehouse. The approval included the placement of a 29,000 square foot office building, which would utilize 10 percent of the gross floor areas with Accessory uses as listed in the 0-3, General Office District zoning classification. The second buildings was to contain 28,000 square feet of conditioned storage access from interior halls and three stand alone 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 for boat and RV storage. The mini -warehouse square footage approved for the development 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 to be developed with C-4, General Commercial District activities. The indicated boat and RV storage is also a C-4, General Commercial District use not included in the total overall percentage of commercial activity. In addition, the accessory uses allowed in the 0-3, General Office District zoning classification are for the most part commercial activities, which totals 2,900 square feet. When combining the two commercial aspects of the development, sixty-nine percent of the total square footage allows commercial type activities leaving only thirty-two percent as office uses. The current request would potentially allow 17,400 square feet to be utilized as office, showroom and warehouse space and commercial type use. This would increase the allowable commercial activities on the site to a total of eighty-six percent leaving only 10,800 square feet of office space. 9 January 5, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-C Staff does not feel this location is appropriate for a "commercial development". The original basis of staffs support of the proposed development was for the development to appear office from the roadway, screening the intense aspect of the development (the mini -warehouse). Staff felt if the development appeared as an office development, limiting the uses as was previously approved, the development would be appropriate for the site. The City's Future Land Use Plan indicates the site as Transitional, which allows for office or residential development. Staff feels allowing the addition of office, showroom and warehouse activities to develop on the site changes the character of the development and reinforces a commercial development. Staff feels the development should utilize the uses as were previously approved; maintaining the office uses along Cantrell Road and Bella Rosa Drive and placing the intense commercial activities within the site, screened from the adjoining roadways by the office building. 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 5, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff stated they had received a formal request from the applicant for a deferral. Staff stated the request was received on January 4, 2006,, which was not within the time frame required by the Planned Commission by-laws. Staff stated the deferral would require a waiver of the by-laws to allow the deferral. Mr. Stephen Giles addressed the Commission on the merits of the deferral request. He stated he was recently retained as council by the developers and he needed additional time to be brought up to speed. He stated with the additional time he would be able to work with staff and the opposition to potentially resolve outstanding issues and concerns. Mr. Gene Pfeifer addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed deferral. He stated he felt the developers had ample time between filing the application and the public hearing to retain council and meet with concerned neighbors. He stated he had arranged to be in town specifically for this meeting and was opposed to any deferral. He stated he felt it an imposition on the citizenry to allow a deferral at such a late date when many had taken off work and come down for a public hearing. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the deferral request. She stated it was important to follow the rules of order and conduct meeting accordingly. January 5, 2006 SUBDIVISION NO.: 7 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6219-C She stated allowing last minute deferrals strained the citizen input process and discouraged citizens from participating in the public hearing process. A motion was made to approve the deferral request. The motion failed by a vote of 10 noes, 1 ayes and 0 absent. Staff presented the requested rezoning with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated the proposed development was considered by the Commission in January of 2005, and the request was not a great deal different than the previous proposal. Mr. Giles addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the development would not be commercial. He stated the center would maintain the existing look and continue to look and feel like an office development. He stated the tenant mix would be such that the uses would be low impact uses such as a dental supply company. He stated there were be no end user purchase from the site. He stated with additional time he could work with staff to determine if enhanced screening and additional landscaping would give the development a better feel and screen the uses. He stated with additional time he could work with staff to determine if there was an office mix that would be acceptable to staff. Mr. Gene Pfeifer addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the Commercial Nodes had been established along Highway 10 and Bella Rosa and Highway 10 was not a commercial node intersection. He stated he did not feel mini -warehouse was envisioned for Highway 10 when the Design Overlay District was created. He stated the Highway 10 Plan did not allow for stripping out of Cantrell Road. He stated the intent by the developers was to rezone the site to commercial to create a commercial node at the intersection of the two roadways. He stated the development was constructed as an office warehouse development. He questioned what office would need an overhead door. Mr. Pfeifer stated the press releases indicated the site with 29,000 square feet of commercial space. He stated the commercial space being advertised was the office space the applicant's were now requesting for rezoning to office showroom warehouse. He stated the restaurant had utilized all the available commercial space within the development. He stated the applicant's had indicated there were no additional changes to the development. He stated the restaurant was staying open late and questioned if the hours of operation were approved as a closing of 8:00 pm why the restaurant was not being required to adhere to the zoning. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she did not feel the proposed request was consistent with the Transitional zone. She stated the original intent was to screen the mini -warehouse with the office development and she felt the office building did act as a screen. She stated with the allowance of the commercial uses the character of the development would be changed. She stated a commercial development was inconsistent with the City's Land Use Plan. 7 January 5, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-C Mr. Giles stated he would like to address the concerns of the opposition. He stated the development would not be a commercial development and would not create a commercial node. He stated the proposed uses of the development were not high volume traffic generators. He stated the request was not retail uses and not a shopping center. He stated the restaurant was a neighborhood use. Mr. Pete Hornibrook addressed the Commission on behalf of the owners. He stated he was involved in the sale of the property and the development of the site. He stated the site was constructed as a commerce center not a commercial center. He stated the proposed uses of the site included uses for office, showroom and warehousing activities. He stated there would be limited customer traffic to the site and there would be no carrying of merchandise from the site. There was a lengthy discussion from the Commission and staff concerning the definition of and examples of office, showroom and warehousing activities. The� Commission questioned the location of a facility similar to the proposed development. Staff could not give an example of a facility. Staff stated something similar would be a medical supplies facility. Staff stated if the developer were proposing a catalogue sales business then there would not be an issue. The Commission questioned if product could be on display staff stated no product only catalogue sales. Mr. Hornibrook stated the proposed use was an allowable use under the 0-3 zoning district as a Conditional Use. He stated the developers were not requesting to change the site to a commercial development. He stated the developers would be willing to limit the development to no product carryout from the site. He stated.1he had met with two neighborhood associations in the area and the immediate neighbors. He stated there was little opposition to the proposed request. A motion was made to approve the request as filed. The motion failed by a vote -of 5 ayes, 5 noes and 1 absent. ITEM NO.: 7 NAME: Bella Rosa Revised Long -form PCD Z -6219-C LOCATION: on the Southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Bella Rosa 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. 2. The applicant is requesting to add the following uses as allowable uses to the site: i. to allow up to 60% of the building to be utilized as office, showroom/warehouse space ii. to allow a health studio or spa use Variance/Waivers: None requested. Public Works Conditions: 1. No comment. Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Ente[gV: No comment. Center -Point Enerav: No comment. SBC: No comment. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Plannin : No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 — the Highway 10 Express Route. Planning Division: Landscape: No comment. Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plan (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, December 14, 2005.