Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6480 Staff AnalysisILE NO.: Z-6480 NAME: Bowman Office Park -- Short -Form POD LOCATTON: West side of Bowman Road, approximately 600 feet south of Kanis Road DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• Rees Development Co. MCGetrick Engineering 12115 Hinson Rd. 11225 Huron Lane Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 5.40 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PCD and R-2 ALLOWED USES: Mini -warehouses and Single -Family Residential PROPOSED USE: 0-3 permitted and accessory uses, office showroom/warehouse VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: on February 18, 1997, the Board of Directors approved ordinance #17,403 rezoning part of this property to PCD. The PCD was for a mini -warehouse development which included an office and six mini - warehouse buildings. The remainder of the property is zoned R-2. A. PROPOSAL• The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to POD. The applicant proposes to construct a 59,600 square foot building with 207 parking spaces. The applicant proposes the following uses for the property: 50% of the building - permitted 0-3 uses 40% of the building - office showroom/warehouse 10% of the building - 0-3 accessory uses The applicant proposes to maintain a 34 foot buffer area along the west property line, adjacent to the single-family residences. FILE NO.: Z-6480 Cont. B. C. �9 EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is mostly cleared and contains two vacant single- family residences. There are several mature trees on the site. There is a commercial strip center and mini -warehouses to the north with single-family residences located to the west and south. There is an ice skating rink along with office and commercial uses to the east across Bowman Road. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Staff has received no neighborhood comment as of this writing. The Parkway Place and Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORTS CONDITIONS: 1. Bowman Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline is required. 2. NPDES and grading permits are required -prior to construction, site grading and drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved. 3. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 4. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5 foot sidewalks with planned development. 5. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 6. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 7. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works, Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package. 8. Street improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Completed plans must be approved by Traffic Engineering prior to construction. 9. Obtain permits (barricade/street cut) for improvements within proposed or existing right-of-way from Traffic Engineering prior to construction in right-of-way. 10. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. All requests should be forwarded to Traffic Engineering. 11. Utility excavation within proposed rights-of-way shall be per Article V of Sec. 30. 2 FILE NO.: Z-6480 (Cont.) E. F. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: No Comment. AP&L: No Comment received. Arkla: No Comment received. Southwestern Bell: A 5 foot easement is requested along the north, south and west property lines. Water: On site fire protection will be required as specified by the Little Rock Fire Department. A special development fee will apply for service to this property in addition to normal charges. Fire Department: On site fire protection may be required. Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details. County Planning: No Comment. CATA: The site is not on a Central Arkansas Transit bus route. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: The request is in the Ellis Mountain District. The Plan recommends Transition. As long as the office development is "compatible" with residential, there should be no Plan issue. Careful review of signage, massing, lighting, dumpster location, connection to residential, etc. is important. Landscape Issues: The proposed street buffer along Bowman Road drops 8 feet below the 28 feet required by ordinance. The westernmost dumpster location intrudes into the required 30 foot wide land use buffer along the western perimeter of the site. The proposed southern buffer drops below the full width requirement of 17 feet most of the way. A total of six percent of the interior of the vehicular use area must be landscaped with interior islands. The plan submitted appears to be 1,878 square foot short of this requirement. A 3 foot wide landscape strip is required between public parking areas and the building. Some flexibility with this requirement is allowed. A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the western and southern perimeters adjacent to residential properties. This screen may be a wooden fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings. 3 FILE N0.: Z-6480 (Cont ) Existing trees should be left along the western perimeter adjacent to residential use. Provide the method to be employed to protect existing trees in this area. Because of the grade difference along the western perimeter, it will be necessary to provide a detail of how this difference will be dealt with. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscape areas from vehicular use. An 8 foot high opaque screen will be required to screen three sides of the dumpster(s). Prior to a building permit being issued, three copies of a detailed landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by Bob Brown, Plans Review Specialist. He may be reached at 371-4864. G. ANALYSIS• The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on April 16, 1998. The revised plan addresses some of the issues raised by the Subdivision Committee. However, staff is not supportive of the proposed site plan. Staff feels that the site plan as proposed. does not meet the spirit and intent of the City's land use plan. The City's land use plan designates the property as Transition. The following is the definition of Transition: "Transition is a land use plan designation which provides for an orderly transition between residential uses and other more intense uses. Transition was established to deal with areas which contain zoned residential uses and nonconforming nonresidential uses. A Planned Zoning District is required unless the application conforms with the Design overlay standards. Uses which may be considered are low density multifamily residential and office uses if the proposals are compatible with quality of life in nearby residential areas." Staff feels that the proposed site plan does not meet the intent of the definition of Transition for the following reasons: 1. Staff feels that the large scale building does not allow the "orderly transition" between the residential uses to the west and south and the proposed office uses. 4 FILE NO.: Z-6480 (Cont.) 2. Instead of one rather large building, staff feels that there should be a massing of two or more smaller buildings. 3. The buildings should have more of a residential character and appearance. 4. There should be increased interior landscaping between the buildings. 5. Other factors that should be considered: site lighting, perimeter landscaping, dumpster location, signage, building height and hours of operation. If the applicant wishes to pursue the rezoning, the site plan will need to be redesigned (with the above concerns in mind) to make the development more compatible with the nearby residential areas. The site plan (if revised) will need to be reviewed by staff and resubmitted to the Subdivision Committee. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the POD zoning. Staff feels that the proposed development is not compatible with nearby residential areas. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: Pat McGetrick, John Rees and Melanie Gibson were present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposed POD. Staff noted several concerns relating to the proposed site plan. Staff stated that the site plan needed to be redesigned to meet the intent of the land use plan definition of Transition. The applicant indicated that the site plan would not be revised. Bruce Kemmet, of Public Works, reviewed the Public Works requirements with the Committee, primarily driveway placement. Bob Brown, of Planning Staff, indicated that interior and building landscaping were deficient. After a brief discussion, the Committee forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 1998) Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff gave a brief description of the preliminary plat and POD, with a recommendation of approval of _ the preliminary plat and denial of the site plan. Staff A FILE NO.: Z-6480 (Cont.) explained that the site plan design would not be compatible with the existing adjacent residential uses. Pat McGetrick addressed the Commission in support of the application. Mr. McGetrick explained the revisions which were made in the site plan to address staff's concerns. These included two smaller buildings instead of one large building, increased landscaping, a pitched roof instead of a flat roof, and a building exterior which is more residential in character. Staff noted that they had not seen the revised site plan. Commissioner Putnam asked the land use plan designation for the property. Tony Bozynski, Assistant Director of Planning and Development, stated that the land use plan showed the property as Transition. Commissioner Putnam asked about the building's setback from the residential property. There was a brief discussion concerning the setback from residential. Commissioner Muse asked about saving existing trees on the site. Mr. McGetrick responded that most of the trees within the west buffer area would remain. Commissioner Hawn suggested that the item be deferred to allow staff time to review the revised site plan. Staff responded that a six week deferral would be supported. A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat as recommended by staff. The motion passed with a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. A motion was made to defer the POD to the June 11, 1998 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. STAFF UPDATE Staff has reviewed the revised site plan which was submitted at the Planning Commission hearing on April 30, 1998. The applicant has divided the large building into two (2) buildings, reducing the total square footage from 59,600 square feet to 57,600 square feet. The applicant has given the buildings much more of a residential design, including pitched roof lines and a facade utilizing brick veneer and split -face block and residential -style windows. The applicant has also increased the overall landscaping on the site. Perimeter, street side, interior and building landscaping have been increased. There will be one (1) monument sign which will conform to the office standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday -Friday. Site -lighting will be low-level and directed away from adjacent property. NO.: Z-6480 (Cont. Although, the revised site plan is not exactly what was anticipated, it is a vast improvement over the original plan. Staff feels that the changes are enough to make the proposed development compatible with the adjacent residential and conform with the land use plan. AMENDED STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the POD subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the comments noted in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. 2. Any site lighting will be low-level and directed away from adjacent property. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 21,.1998) Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application. Staff briefly described the revised site plan. Staff noted that the changes in the site plan were enough to make the development compatible with the adjacent residential uses and conform with the land use plan. After the brief discussion, the Committee forwarded the issue to the full Commission for resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 1998) The staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 7 June 11, 1998 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-6480 NAME: Bowman Office Park -- Short -Form POD LOCATION: West side of Bowman Road, approximately 600 feet south of Kanis Road DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• Rees Development Co. McGetrick Engineering 12115 Hinson Rd. 11225 Huron Lane Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 5.40 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PCD and R-2 ALLOWED USES: Mini -warehouses and Single -Family Residential PROPOSED USE: 0-3 permitted and accessory uses, office showroom/warehouse VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND• On February 18, 1997, the Board of Directors approved ordinance #17,403 rezoning part of this property to PCD. The PCD was for a mini -warehouse development which included an office and six mini - warehouse buildings. The remainder of the property is zoned R-2. A. PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to POD. The applicant proposes to construct a 59,600 square foot building with 207 parking spaces. The applicant proposes the following uses for the property: 50% of the building - permitted 0-3 uses 40% of the building - office showroom/warehouse 10% of the building - 0-3 accessory uses The applicant proposes to maintain a 34 foot buffer area along the west property line, adjacent to the single-family residences. June 11, 1998 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-6480 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is mostly cleared and contains two vacant single- family residences. There'are several mature trees on the site. There is a commercial strip center and mini -warehouses to the north with single-family residences located to the west and south. There is an ice skating rink along with office and commercial uses to the east across Bowman Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Staff has received no neighborhood comment as of this writing. The Parkway Place and Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORMS CONDITIONS: 1. Bowman Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline is required. 2. NPDES and grading permits are required prior to construction, site grading and drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved. 3. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 4. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5 foot sidewalks with planned development. 5. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 6. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 7. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works, Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package. 8. Street improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Completed plans must be approved by Traffic Engineering prior to construction. 9. Obtain permits (barricade/ street cut) for improvements within proposed or existing right-of-way from Traffic Engineering prior to construction in right-of-way. 10. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. All requests should be forwarded to Traffic Engineering. E June 11, 1998 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6480 11. utility excavation within proposed rights-of-way shall be per Article V of Sec. 30. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: No Comment. AP&L: No Comment received. Arkla: No Comment received. Southwestern Bell: A 5 foot easement is requested along the north, south and west property lines. Water: On site fire protection will be required as specified by the Little Rock Fire Department. A special development fee will apply for service to this property in addition to normal charges. Fire Department: On site fire protection may be required. Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details. County Plann.in : No Comment. LATA: The site is not on a Central Arkansas Transit bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: The request is in the Ellis Mountain District. The Plan recommends Transition. As long as the office development is "compatible" with residential, there should be no Plan issue. Careful review of signage, massing, lighting, dumpster location, connection to residential, etc. is important. Landscape Issues: The proposed street buffer along Bowman Road drops 8 feet below the 28 feet required by ordinance. The westernmost dumpster location intrudes into the required 30 foot wide land use buffer along the western perimeter of the site. The proposed southern buffer drops below the full width requirement of 17 feet most of the way. A total of six percent of the interior of the vehicular use area must be landscaped with interior islands. The plan submitted appears to be 1,878 square foot short of this requirement. A 3 foot wide landscape strip is required between public parking areas and the building. Some flexibility with this requirement is allowed. 3 June 11, 1998 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6480 A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the western and southern perimeters adjacent to residential properties. This screen may be a wooden fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings. Existing trees should be left along the western perimeter adjacent to residential use. Provide the method to be employed to protect existing trees in this area. Because of the grade difference along the western perimeter, it will be necessary to provide a detail of how this difference will be dealt with. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscape areas from vehicular use. An 8 foot high opaque screen will be required to screen three sides of the dumpster(s). Prior to a building permit being issued, three copies of a detailed landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by Bob Brown, Plans Review Specialist. He may be reached at 371-4864. G. ANALYSIS• The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on April 16, 1998. The revised plan addresses some of the issues raised by the Subdivision Committee. However, staff is not supportive of the proposed site plan. Staff feels that the site plan as proposed does not meet the spirit and intent of the City's land use plan. The City's land use plan designates the property as Transition. The following is the definition of Transition: "Transition is a land use plan designation which provides for an orderly transition between residential uses and other more intense uses. Transition was established to deal with areas which contain zoned residential uses and nonconforming nonresidential uses. A Planned zoning District is required unless the application conforms with the Design Overlay standards. Uses which may be considered are low density multifamily residential and office uses if the proposals are compatible with quality of life in nearby residential areas. - 4 June 11, 1998 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-64801 Staff feels that the proposed site plan does not meet the intent of the definition of Transition for the following reasons: 1. Staff feels that the Targe scale building does not allow the "orderly transition" between the residential uses to the west and south and the proposed office uses. 2. Instead of one rather large building, staff feels that there should be a massing of two or more smaller buildings. 3. The buildings should have more of a residential character and appearance. 4. There should be increased interior landscaping between the buildings. 5. Other factors that should be considered: site lighting, perimeter landscaping, dumpster location, signage, building height and hours of operation. If the applicant wishes to pursue the rezoning, the site plan will need to be redesigned (with the above concerns in mind) to make the development more compatible with the nearby residential areas. The site plan (if revised) will need to be reviewed by staff and resubmitted to the Subdivision Committee. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the POD zoning. Staff feels that the proposed development is not compatible with nearby residential areas. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: Pat McGetrick, John Rees and Melanie Gibson were present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposed POD. Staff noted several concerns relating to the proposed site plan. Staff stated that the site plan needed to be redesigned to meet the intent of the land use plan definition of Transition. The applicant indicated that the site plan would not be revised. Bruce Kemmet, of Public Works, reviewed the Public Works requirements with the Committee, primarily driveway placement. Bob Brown, of Planning Staff, indicated that interior and building landscaping were deficient. 5 June 11, 1998 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.• D (Cont ) FILE NO.: Z-6480 After a brief discussion, the Committee forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 1998) Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff gave a brief description of the preliminary plat and POD, with a recommendation of approval of the preliminary plat and denial of the site plan. Staff explained that the site plan design would not be compatible with the existing adjacent residential uses. Pat McGetrick addressed the Commission in support of the application. Mr. McGetrick explained the revisions which were made in the site plan to address staff's concerns. These included two smaller buildings instead of one large building, increased landscaping, a pitched roof instead of a flat roof, and a building exterior which is more residential in character. Staff noted that they had not seen the revised site plan. Commissioner Putnam asked the land use plan designation for the property. Tony Bozynski, Assistant Director of Planning and Development, stated that the land use plan showed the property as Transition. Commissioner Putnam asked about the building's setback from the residential property. There was a brief discussion concerning the setback from residential. Commissioner Muse asked about saving existing trees on the site. Mr. McGetrick responded that most of the trees within the west buffer area would remain. Commissioner Hawn suggested that the item be deferred to allow staff time to review the revised site plan. Staff responded that a six week deferral would be supported. A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat as recommended by staff. The motion passed with a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. A motion was made to defer the POD to the June 11, 1998 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. STAFF UPDATE: Staff has reviewed the revised site plan which was submitted at the Planning Commission hearing on April 30, 1998. The applicant 6 June 11, 1998 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6480 has divided the large building into two (2) buildings, reducing the total square footage from 59,600 square feet to 57,600 square feet. The applicant has given the buildings much more of a residential design, including pitched roof lines and a facade utilizing brick veneer and split -face block and residential -style windows. The applicant has also increased the overall landscaping on the site. Perimeter, street side, interior and building landscaping have been increased. There will be one (1) monument sign which will conform to the office standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday -Friday. Site -lighting will be low-level and directed away from adjacent property. Although, the revised site plan is not exactly what was anticipated, it is a vast improvement over the original plan. Staff feels that the changes are enough to make the proposed development compatible with the adjacent residential and conform with the land use plan. AMENDED STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the POD subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the comments noted in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. 2. Any site lighting will be low-level and directed away from adjacent property. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 21, 1998) Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application. Staff briefly described the revised site plan. Staff noted that the changes in the site plan were enough to make the development compatible with the adjacent residential uses and conform with the land use plan. After the brief discussion, the Committee forwarded the issue to the full Commission for resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 1998) The staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. 7 June 11, 1998 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5480 The Chairman placed the item before the within the Consent Agenda for approval A motion to that effect was made. The 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 8 Commission for inclusion as recommended by staff. motion passed by a vote of