Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6219-D Staff AnalysisI k May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.. R FILE NO.: Z -6219-D NAME: Bella Rosa Revised Long -form PCD LOCATION: Located 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: PROPOSED ZONING: NUMBER OF LOTs: I loco FT. NEW STREET: 0 Office/VVarehouse — Mini -warehouse development Revised PCD PROPOSEDUSE: Office/Shc)wroom/Warehouse—Mini-warehouse development— A revision to the hours of operation VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKaROUND: 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 offlae 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, 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 comer of May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NQ,: R (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-D 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 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 hal(s and three buildings of stand-alone mini -warehouse buiidings 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 wouid have 24-hour access. The approval allows 0-3 uses and an allowance for ten percent of the gross floor area as 0-3 accessory uses with the 29,000 square foot office building. 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 appealed to the Board of Direttors. On January 5, 2006, the Little Rock Planning Commission recommended denial of a request to revise the previously approved PCD to allow additional uses to occupy the site. The proposal included the allowance of up to 60% of the 29,000 square foot office building to be utilized as office, showroom and warehouse space and to allow a health studio or spa use. This recommendation has been appealed to the Board of Directors and is scheduled to be heard at the Board of Directors' April 18. 2006, public hearing. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant is now proposing to amend the previously approved PCD to allow a modification in the hours of operation. The sole purpose, of the application is to revise the PCD to specify that the hours of operation,'as specified in the existing PCD, apply only to the office of the mini -warehouse facility on the south side of the property. The hours of operation will not be specified for the tenants of the 29,000 square foot office building. The mini -warehouse portion of the development is to remain with 24-hour access. 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 southem perimeters. The property to the east of the site (across Bella Rosa Drive) is 2 May 11, 2006 S11BDIVISION ITEM NO.; R (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-D 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, all residents who could be identified located within 300 -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: No comment. E. UTI LITI ES AN Q F1 R E DEPARTM ENT/CQU NTY P LAN N I N G: Wastewater: No comment regarding the extended hours of operation. Entergy: No comment. Center -Point E[Lerg : No comment. SBC: No comment. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: No comment regarding extending hours of operation. Counly Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 -the Highway 10 Express Route. 3 May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-D F. ISSUESITECHNICAUDESIGN: 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 PCD for change business hours of the site. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Cantrell is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan and may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. Bicycle -Plan: A Class I bike route is located along the creek just north of Cantrell and 600' north of this site. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Cit nized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not y Recog located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landsca : No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 8, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicting there were no outstanding issues associated with the request. 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 March 8, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant is proposing to amend the previously approved PCD to allow a modification in the hours of operation only. The sole purpose of the application is to revise the PCD to specify that the hours of operation, as were approved in the existing PCD, would apply only to the office of the mini -warehouse facility and the hours of operation for the 29,000 square foot office building would not be specified. The mini -warehouse portion is to still have 24-hour access. Staff is not supportive of this request. The building was approved for 0-3, General Office District uses which are typically not 24-hour businesses. Staff feels the hours of operation of the office building should be more in keeping with an office development and some limits should be placed on the approved hours. 4 May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-D STAT:F Rr-COMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30,2006) Mr. Stephen Giles was present representing the application. Staff presented the item in d i cati ng they we re now su pportive o -l' th e p roposed hou rs Df operati on . Staff stated th e applicant had indicated the closing hours of the restaurant Monday through Thursday at 1 1:0C) pm, Friday and Saturday 12:00 Midnight and Sunday at 10:00 pm. Staff stated the office portion of the development would close at 9:00 pm and the mini -warehouse would remain open 24 -hours per day. Staff stated the office portion of the mini -warehouse would close at 8:00 pm as was previously approved. There was a question concerning the removal of the wording Tavern 10 located on the awning. Staff stated the request was for hours of operation and not signage but the applicant had made the commitment to remove this wording from the awning. Mr. Stephen Giles addressed the Commission on the merits of the request, He stated the developers were requesting additional hours of operation to support the restaurant use of the development. He stated the additional hours would allow patrons of the restaurant to enjoy a televised game, many of which ran over the allotted time frame, and by closing at 11:00 pm this would allow the game to finish before the required closing hour. Ms. Kathleen Oleson addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she had followed the development of Highway 10 for a number of years. She stated developments made accommodations to gain support of the Commission and the Board. She stated the developers indicated two years ago, when the development was approved, the limiting of the hours of operation would not be an issue. She stated now the developers were requesting to extend the hours of operation. She stated to approve the request would send a signal to the development community and the citizens of Little Rock that once a development was approved to wait a little while and come back to the Commission to change the limits imposed oh the approval. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request She stated the intent of the Highway 10 Design Overlay was to cluster commercial development and allow residential and commercial activibes to coincide along the corridor. She stated the site was shown on the Land Use Plan as Transitional which allowed for residential and office development. She stated the development was an intense development and by 2 May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-D extending the hours of operation would only magnify the commercial activitY of the development, She stated there were restaurant uses located in office buildings around the City which did quiet well maintaining typical office development hours. Mr. Gene Pfeifer addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the deveiopi-nent was not an office development and was not constructed or intended to be an office development. He stated the developers had a lust to make the site a commercial strip zone. He stated with the original approval the proper notice was not given to area residents therefore those most impacted and most opposed to the development were not notified. He stated the Commission was being asked to reward bad behavior. He stated if the development was constructed as an office development why the overhead doors were installed on each of the bays, He stated the development was constructed as an ofFice warehouse facility and not an office development. He stated the developers provided information and press releases indicated the development as a commerce center. He stated the placement of a tavern on the site was also operating outside the approved parameters. He stated the Highway 10 Plan was developed and adopted to create commercial nodes. He stated the nodes were created to add value to properties and to allow some properties to remain as residential. He stated the development as constructed was 60 percent commercial located within a Transition area which was more than should be allowed. He stated the developers proposed an "L", shaped office building to screen the mini-warehDuse portion of the development. He stated the developers agreed to hours of operation and the allowed uses. He stated now neither was good enough for the developers. He stated the developers were requesting a change to the hours of operation and the allowable uses for the site. He stated the Commission should send a message to the development community that the approval received is based on the applicants request. He stated the developers had already gotten more than they should have been allowed based on the Land Use Plan. Mr. Jim May addressed the Commission on the proposed time request. He stated the intent was for the office of the mini -warehouse to be limited on hours and not the remainder of the development. He stated the intent was not to limit the hours of operation for the accessory or office uses. Mr. Giles stated the developers were requesting a 9:00 closing time to allow a medical office or a tax preparation service to locate on the site. He stated most of the office uses would likely close at 5.00 pm to 6:00 pm. There was a general discussion concerning the hours of operation of the mini -warehouse facility. Mr. May stated the occupants could pay a fee and be offered 24 hour service. He stated currently only three customers paid for the additional hours - He stated 24 hour access was common for mini -warehouse developments. Commissioner Yates questioned the applicant ff they were willing to compromise to May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R (Con0 FILE NO.: Z -6219-D limiting the hours of service for the rTiini-warehouse facility. Mr. May stated they were willing to limit the hours of the mini -warehouse facility to closing at 8:00 pm. Commissioner Mizan stated he was not supportive of allowing the developers additional time. He stated the request was from 7:00 am to 8:00 prn as approved. He stated the developers were now requesting to change the rules. There was a general discussion concerning the use of the site. Staff stated the development was approved as a restaurant use. Staff stated a bar use not an allowable use under the 0-3 zoning district. Staff stated if in fact the development was a tavern then the use was not an allowable use. Mr. Giles stated due to the confusion a deferral was likely in order. The Chairman entertained a motion to approve the deferral request. The motion carded by a vote of 6 ayes, 4 noes and I absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 20D6) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented the item indicating the item was a deferral item from the March 30, 2006, public hearing. Staff presented the hours of operation proposed by the applicant and the classification of the privilege license. Staff stated they were supportive of the request based on the previous amendment to the hours of operation. Mr. Phil Kaplan addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the request was to expand the commercial node and commercial areas along Highway 10. He stated the developers were turning the center into a strip center and requesting to be awarded for their scofflaw attitude. He stated the commercial business located on the site was not a restaurant but was a sports bar. He stated if the Commission approved the request this would send a.message to developers to provide a development to gain support and then amend the request to increase the intensity. Ms. Alicia Finch addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she'was representing the Collocation of West Little Rock Neighborhoods in opposing the request. She stated the applicant was proposing to revise the previously approved hours of operation which she did not feel were compatible with the nearby residential uses. She stated the proposed request was not in keeping with the guidelines established for development along the Highway 10 Corridor. Ms. Kathleen Oleson addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the two previous speakers expressed the same concerns as hers. She stated the Commission's role was not to help someone with their business plan when not successful. rA May 11, 2006 _SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-D Mr. Gene Pfeifer addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the hours of operation were a small concession the City was granted to allowing a C-4 use on the site located within a transitional zone. He stated the development was never intended by the developers to be an office development but an expansion of the commercial node. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated like a bad penny Bella Rosa keeps coming back to the Commission for modification. She stated the request was before the Commission because the applicant was operating outside the allowed hours of operation which was brought to the Commission's attention at a previous public hearing. Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission answering questions raised. He stated the use was a restaurant. He stated 85% of the revenues were from food sales. Commissioner Yates questioned Mr. Giles on clarification of the hours of operation. Mr. Giles stated the hours were as staff had indicated and the mini -warehouse facility would be limited to 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. The Commission questioned the number of times they had seen the request. Staff stated the original approvai and two modifications. There was a general discussion concerning the hours of operation and the location adjacent to residential uses. Staff stated they felt the commercial aspect should be allowed additional hours. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 5 noes and 0 absent. FILE NO.: Z -6219-D NAME: Bella Rosa Revised Long -form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Bella Rosa Drive DEVELOPER: HWY 107 Associates, LLC 3801 Woodland Heights Little Rock, AR 72212 FKI(-�INFFR, McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 7.5 Acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED ZONING: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 PCD FT. NEW STREET: 0 Office/Warehouse — Mini -warehouse development Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Office/Showroom/Warehouse — Mini -warehouse development — A revision to the hours of operation VARIANCESANAIVERS 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, 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 FILE NO.: Z-621 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 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 approval allows 0-3 uses and an allowance for ten percent of the gross floor area as 0-3 accessory uses with the 29,000 square foot office building. 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 appealed to the Board of Directors. On January 5, 2006, the Little Rock Planning Commission recommended denial of a request to revise the previously approved PCD to allow additional uses to occupy the site. The proposal included the allowance of up to 60% of the 29,000 square foot office building to be utilized as office, showroom and warehouse space and to allow a health studio or spa use. This recommendation has been appealed to the Board of Directors and is scheduled to be heard at the Board of Directors'April 18, 2006, public hearing. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now proposing to amend the previously approved PCD to allow a modification in the hours of operation. The sole purpose of the application is to revise the PCD to specify that the hours of operation, as specified in the existing PCD, apply only to the office of the mini -warehouse facility on the south side of the property. The hours of operation will not be specified for the tenants of the 29,000 square foot office building. The mini -warehouse portion of the development is to remain with 24-hour access. 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 2 FILE NO.: Z-621 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 s1te, all residents who could be identified located within 300 -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: No comment. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: No comment regarding the extended hours of operation. Entergy: No comment. Center -Point Enerq : No comment. SBC: No comment. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: No comment regarding extending hours of operation. CountV Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 -the Highway 10 Express Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN- Plannina 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 PCD for change business hours of the site. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Cantrell is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan and may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. 3 FILE NO.: Z -6219-D (Cont.) G H Biqycle Plan: A Class I bike route is located along the creek just north of Cantrell and 600' north of this site. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. 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: (March 8, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicting there were no outstanding issues associated with the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. ANALYSIS: There were no outstanding issues associated with the request remaining from the March 8, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant is proposing to amend the previously approved PCD to allow a modification in the hours of operation only. The sole purpose of the application is to revise the PCD to specify that the hours of operation, as were approved in the existing PCD, would apply only to the office of the mini -warehouse facility and the hours of operation for the 29,000 square foot office building would not be specified. The mini -warehouse portion is to still have 24-hour access. Staff is not supportive of this request. The building was approved for 0-3, General Office District uses which are typically not 24-hour businesses. Staff feels the hours of operation of the office building should be more in keeping with an office development and some limits should be placed on the approved hours. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30,2006) Mr. Stephen Giles was present representing the application. Staff presented the item indicating they were now supportive of the proposed hours of operation. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the closing hours of the restaurant Monday through Thursday at 11:00 pm, Friday and Saturday 12:00 Midnight and Sunday at 10:00 pm. Staff stated the office portion of the development would close at 9:00 pm and the mini -warehouse FILE NO.: Z -6219-D (Cont. would remain open 24 -hours per day. Staff stated the office portion of the mini -warehouse would close at 8:00 pm as was previously approved. There was a question concerning the removal of the wording Tavern 10 located on the awning. Staff stated the request was for hours of operation and not signage but the applicant had made the commitment to remove this wording from the awning. Mr. Stephen Giles addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the developers were requesting additional hours of operation to support the restaurant use of the development. He stated the additional hours would allow patrons of the restaurant to enjoy a televised game, many of which ran over the allotted time frame, and by closing at 11:00 prn this would allow the game to finish before the required closing hour. Ms. Kathleen Oleson addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she had followed the development of Highway 10 for a number of years. She stated developments made accommodations to gain support of the Commission and the Board. She stated the developers indicated two years ago, when the development was approved, the limiting of the hours of operation would not be an issue. She stated now the developers were requesting to extend the hours of operation. She stated to approve the request would send a signal to the development community and the citizens of Little Rock that once a development was approved to wait a little while and come back to the Commission to change the limits imposed on the approval. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the intent of the Highway 10 Design Overlay was to cluster commercial development and allow residential and commercial activities to coincide along the corridor. She stated the site was shown on the Land Use Plan as Transitional which allowed for residential and office development. She stated the development was an intense development and by extending the hours of operation would only magnify the commercial activity of the development. She stated there were restaurant uses located in office buildings around the City which did quiet well maintaining typical office development hours. Mr. Gene Pfeifer addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the development was not an office development and was not constructed or intended to be an office development. He stated the developers had a lust to make the site a commercial strip zone. He stated with the original approval the proper notice was not given to area residents therefore those most impacted and most opposed to the development were not notified. He stated the Commission was being asked to reward bad behavior. He stated if the development was constructed as an office development why the overhead doors were installed on each of the bays. He stated the development was constructed as an office warehouse facility and not an office development. He stated the developers provided information and press releases indicated the development as a commerce center. He stated the placement of a tavern on the site was also operating outside the approved parameters. He stated the Highway 10 Plan was developed and adopted to create commercial nodes. He stated the nodes were 5 FILE NO.: Z -6219-D (Cont. created to add value to properties and to allow some properties to remain as residential. He stated the development as constructed was 60 percent commercial located within a Transition area which was more than should be allowed. He stated the developers proposed an "L" shaped office building to screen the mini -warehouse portion of the development. He stated the developers agreed to hours of operation and the allowed uses. He stated now neither was good enough for the developers. He stated the developers were requesting a change to the hours of operation and the allowable uses for the site. He stated the Commission should send a message to the development community that the approval received is based on the applicant's request. He stated the developers had already gotten more than they should have been allowed based on the Land Use Plan. Mr. Jim May addressed the Commission on the proposed time request. He stated the intent was for the office of the mini -warehouse to be limited on hours and not the remainder of the development. He stated the intent was not to limit the hours of operation for the accessory or office uses. Mr. Giles stated the developers were requesting a 9:00 closing time to allow a medical office or a tax preparation service to locate on the site. He stated most of the office uses would likely close at 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm. There was a general discussion concerning the hours of operation of the mini -warehouse facility. Mr. May stated the occupants could pay a fee and be offered 24 hour service. He stated currently only three customers paid for the additional hours. He stated 24 hour access was common for mini -warehouse developments. Commissioner Yates questioned the applicant if they were willing to compromise to limiting the hours of service for the mini -warehouse facility. Mr. May stated they were willing to limit the hours of the mini -warehouse facility to closing at 8:00 pm. Commissioner Mizan stated he was not supportive of allowing the developers additional time. He stated the request was from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm as approved. He stated the developers were now requesting to change the rules. There was a general discussion concerning the use of the site. Staff stated the development was approved as a restaurant use. Staff stated a bar use not an allowable use under the 0-3 zoning district. Staff stated if in fact the development was a tavern then the use was not an allowable use. Mr. Giles stated due to the confusion a deferral was likely in order. The Chairman entertained a motion to approve the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 4 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented the item indicating the item was a deferral item from the March 30, 2006, public hearing. Staff presented the hours of operation proposed by the applicant and the classification of the privilege FILE NO.: Z -6219-D license. Staff stated they were supportive of the request based on the previous amendment to the hours of operation. Mr. Phil Kaplan addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the request was to expand the commercial node and commercial areas along Highway 10. He stated the developers were turning the center into a strip center and requesting to be awarded for their scofflaw attitude. He stated the commercial business located on the site was not a restaurant but was a sports bar. He stated if the Commission approved the request this would send a message to developers to provide a development to gain support and then amend the request to increase the intensity. Ms. Alicia Finch addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she was representing the Collocation of West Little Rock Neighborhoods in opposing the request. She stated the applicant was proposing to revise the previously approved hours of operation which she did not feel were compatible with the nearby residential uses. She stated the proposed request was not in keeping with the guidelines established for development along the Highway 10 Corridor. Ms. Kathleen Oleson addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the two previous speakers expressed the same concerns as hers. She stated the Commission's role was not to help someone with their business plan when not successful. Mr. Gene Pfeifer addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the hours of operation were a small concession the City was granted to allowing a C-4 use on the site located within a transitional zone. He stated the development was never intended by the developers to be an office development but an expansion of the commercial node. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated like a bad penny Bella Rosa keeps coming back to the Commission for modification. She stated the request was before the Commission because the applicant was operating outside the allowed hours of operation which was brought to the Commission's attention at a previous public hearing. Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission answering questions raised. He stated the use was a restaurant. He stated 85% of the revenues were from food sales. Commissioner Yates questioned Mr. Giles on clarification of the hours of operation. Mr. Giles stated the hours were as staff had indicated and the mini -warehouse facility would be limited to 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. The Commission questioned the number of times they had seen the request. Staff stated the original approval and two modifications. There was a general discussion concerning the hours of operation and the location adjacent to residential uses. Staff stated they felt the commercial aspect should be allowed additional hours. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 5 noes and 0 absent. 7 May 11, 2006 ITEM NO.: R_ FILE NO.: Z -6219-D NAME: Bella Rosa Revised Long -form PCD LOCATION: Located 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: PROPOSED ZONING: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 PCD FT. NEVV STREET: 0 OfficeANarehouse — Mini -warehouse development Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Office/Showroom/Warehouse — Mini -warehouse development — A revision to the hours of operation VARIANCESNVAIVERS 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 officelwarehouse 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 May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-D 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 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 approval allows 0-3 uses and an allowance for ten percent of the gross floor area as 0-3 accessory uses with the 29,000 square foot office building. 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 officelshowroom/warehouse as allowable activities for the site (currently allowable in 0-3 with a Conditional Use Permit). The request was not appealed to the Board of Directors. On January 5, 2006, the Little Rock Planning Commission recommended denial of a request to revise the previously approved PCD to allow additional uses to occupy the site. The proposal included the allowance of up to 60% of the 29,000 square foot office building to be utilized as office, showroom and warehouse space and to allow a health studio or spa use. This recommendation has been appealed to the Board of Directors and is scheduled to be heard at the Board of Directors' April 18, 2006, public hearing. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant is now proposing to amend the previously approved PCD to allow a modification in the hours of operation, The sole purpose of the application is to revise the PCD to specify that the hours of operation, as specified in the existing PCD, apply only to the office of the mini -warehouse facility on the south side of the property. The hours of operation will not be specified for the tenants of the 29,000 square foot office building. The mini -warehouse portion of the development is to remain with 24-hour access. 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 011 May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-D 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, all residents who could be identified located within 300 -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: Nocomment. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: No comment regarding the extended hours of operation. Entergy: No comment. Center -Point Ene[g : No comment. SBC: No comment. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: No comment regarding extending hours of operation. Coun�y Plannin : No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 -the Highway 10 Express Route. 3 May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R (Cont.) FILF NO.: Z-r-gio-n F ISSUESITECHNICAL/DES1QN: 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 PCD for change business hours of the site. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan- Cantrell is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan and may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. Bigycle Plan: A Class I bike route is located along the creek just north of Cantrell and 600' north of this site. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Cily Recognized Neighborhood Action PI 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: (March 8, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicting there were no outstanding issues associated with the request. 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 March 8, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant is proposing to amend the previously approved PCD to allow a modification in the hours of operation only. The sole purpose of the application is to revise the PCD to specify that the hours of operation, as were approved in the existing PCD, would apply only to the office of the mini -warehouse facility and the hours of operation for the 29,000 square foot office building would not be specified. The mini -warehouse portion is to still have 24-hour access. Staff is not supportive of this request. The building was approved for 0-3, General Office District uses which are typically not 24-hour businesses. Staff feels the hours of operation of the office building should be more in keeping with an office development and some limits should be placed on the approved hours. El May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-D 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30,2006) Mr, Stephen Giles was present representing the application. Staff presented the itern indicating they were now supportive of the proposed hours of operation. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the closing hours of the restaurant Monday through Thursday at 11:00 pm, Friday and Saturday 12:00 Midnight and Sunday at 10:00 pm. Staff stated the office portion of the development would close at 9:00 pm and the mini -warehouse would remain open 24 -hours per day. Staff stated the office portion of the mini -warehouse would close at 8:00 pm as was previously approved. There was a question concerning the removal of the wording Tavern 10 located on the awning. Staff stated the request was for hours of operation and not signage but the applicant had made the commitment to remove this wording from the awning. Mr. Stephen Giles addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the developers were requesting additional hours of operation to support the restaurant use of the development. He stated the additional hours would allow patrons of the restaurant to enjoy a televised game, many of which ran over the allotted time frame, and by closing at 11:00 pm this would allow the game to finish before the required closing hour. Ms. Kathleen Oleson addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she had followed the development of Highway 10 for a number of years. She stated developments made accommodations to gain Support of the Commission and the Board. She stated the developers indicated two years ago, when the development was approved, the limiting of the hours of operation would not be an issue. She stated now the developers were requesting to extend the hours of operation. She stated to approve the request would send a signal to the development community and the citizens of Little Rock that once a development was approved to wait a little while and come back to the Commission to change the limits imposed on the approval. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the intent of the Highway 10 Design Overlay was to cluster commercial development and allow residential and commercial activities to coincide along the corridor. She stated the site was shown on the Land Use Plan as Transitional which allowed for residential and office development. She stated the development was an intense development and by .1 May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R ( 'ont. FILE NO,: Z -6219-D extending the hours of operation would only magnify the commercial activity of the development. She stated there were restaurant uses located in office buildings around the City which did quiet well maintaining typical office development hours. Mr. Gene Pfeifer addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the development was not an office development and was not constructed or intended to be an office development. He stated the developers had a lust to make the site a commercial strip zone. He stated with the original approval the proper notice was not given to area residents therefore those most impacted and most opposed to the development were not notified. He stated the Commission was being asked to reward bad behavior. He stated if the development was constructed as an office development why the overhead doors were installed on each of the bays. He stated the development was constructed as an office warehouse facility and not an office development. He stated the developers provided information and press releases indicated the development as a commerce center. He stated the placement of a tavern on the site was also operating outside the approved parameters, He stated the Highway 10 Plan was developed and adopted to create commercial nodes. He stated the nodes were created to add value to properties and to allow some properties to remain as residential. He stated the development as constructed was 60 percent commercial located within a Transition area which was more than should be allowed. He stated the developers proposed an "L" shaped office building to screen the mini -warehouse portion of the development. He stated the developers agreed to hours of operation and the allowed uses. He stated now neither was good enough for the developers. He stated the developers were requesting a change to the hours of operation and the allowable uses for the site. He stated the Commission should send a message to the development community that the approval received is based on the applicant's request. He stated the developers had already gotten more than they should have been allowed based on the Land Use Plan. Mr. Jim May addressed the Commission on the proposed time request. He stated the intent was for the office of the mini -warehouse to be limited on hours and not the remainder of the development. He stated the intent was not to limit the hours of operation for the accessory or office uses. Mr. Giles stated the developers were requesting a 9:00 closing time to allow a medical office or a tax preparation service to locate on the site. He stated most of the office uses would likely close at 5:00 prn to 6:00 pm. There was a general discussion concerning the hours of operation of the mini -warehouse facility. Mr. May stated the occupants could pay a fee and be offered 24 hour service. He stated currently only three customers paid for the additional hours. He stated 24 hour access was common for mini -warehouse developments. Commissioner Yates questioned the applicant if they were willing to compromise to A May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-D limiting the hours of service for the mini -warehouse facility. Mr. May stated they were willing to limit the hours of the mini -warehouse facility to closing at 8:00 pm. Commissioner Mizan stated he was not supportive of allowing the developers additional time. He stated the request was from 7:00 am to 8:00 prn as approved. He stated the developers were now requesting to change the rules. There was a general discussion concerning the use of the site. Staff stated the development was approved as a restaurant use. Staff stated a bar use not an allowable use under the 0-3 zoning district. Staff stated if in fact the development was a tavern then the use was not an allowable use. Mr. Giles stated due to the confusion a deferral was likely in order. The Chairman entertained a motion to approve the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 4 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented the item indicating the item was a deferral item from the March 30, 2006, public hearing. Staff presented the hours of operation proposed by the applicant and the classification of the privilege license. Staff stated they were supportive of the request based on the previous amendment to the hours of operation. Mr. Phil Kaplan addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the request was to expand the commercial node and commercial areas along Highway 10. He stated the developers were turning the center into a strip center and requesting to be awarded for their scofflaw attitude. He stated the commercial business located on the site was not a restaurant but was a sports bar. He stated if the Commission approved the request this would send a message to developers to provide a development to gain support and then amend the request to increase the intensity. Ms. Alicia Finch addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she was representing the Collocation of West Little Rock Neighborhoods in opposing the request. She stated the applicant was proposing to revise the previously approved hours of operation which she did not feel were compatible with the nearby residential uses. She stated the proposed request was not in keeping with the guidelines established for development along the Highway 10 Corridor. Ms. Kathleen Oleson addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the two previous speakers expressed the same concerns as hers. She stated the Commission's role was not to help someone with their business plan when not successful. 7 May 11, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: R (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6219-D Mr. Gene Pfeifer addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the hours of operation were a small concession the City was granted to allowing a C-4 use on the site located within a transitional zone. He stated the development was never intended by the developers to be an office development but an expansion of the commercial node. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated like a bad penny Bella Rosa keeps coming back to the Commission for modification. She stated the request was before the Commission because the applicant was operating outside the allowed hours of operation which was brought to the Commission's attention at a previous public hearing. Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission answering questions raised. He stated the use was a restaurant. He stated 85% of the revenues were from food sales. Commissioner Yates questioned Mr. Giles on clarification of the hours of operation. Mr. Giles stated the hours were as staff had indicated and the mini -warehouse facility would be limited to 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. The Commission questioned the number of times they had seen the request. Staff stated the original approval and two modifications. There was a general discussion concerning the hours of operation and the location adjacent to residential uses. Staff stated they felt the commercial aspect should be allowed additional hours. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 5 noes and 0 absent. �3 ITEM NO.: 15 NAME: Bella Rosa Revised Long -form PCD Z -6219-D LOCATION: located 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. The notice must be mailed no later than March 15, 2006. The Office of Planning and Development must receive the proof of notice no later than March 24, 2006. 2. The request is to extend the hours of operation for the 29,000 square foot office building to not place a limit on the hours of operation. Previously approved as 7:00 am to 8: 00 pm seven days per week. Variance/Waivers: None requested. Public Works Conditions: No comment. Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: No comment regarding the extended hours of operation. Entergy: Center -Point Energy: SBC: Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: No comment regarding extending hours of operation. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 - the Highway 10 Express Route. Planning DiNtision-, Landscape: Item # 15 Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plat (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, March 15, 2006. Item # 15