Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6806 Staff AnalysisFebruary 17, 2000 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-6806 NAME: CSR Hydro Conduit - Long -Form PID LOCATION: 13701/13707 Pleasant Hill Road DEVELOPER: U -Liner MidAmerica dba CSR Hydro Conduit 13701 Pleasant Hill Road Alexander, AR 72002 AREA: 7.50 acres ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick 319 E. Markham St., Ste. 202 Little Rock, AR 72201 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED USE: Single Family residential; construction maintenance yard Expansion of the existin maintenance yard use VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The property at 13701/13707 Pleasant Hill Road is zoned R-2 with a nonconforming industrial status. There is currently a contractor's maintenance yard (CSR Hydro Conduit) and an excavation company (James Rogers Excavation) occupying the 7.5 acre property. The property has been utilized for these types of uses since prior to the property's annexation in 1980. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing uses by adding new buildings, building additions and equipment storage and parking areas. Based on the proposed expansion, the property must be rezoned. February 17, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6806 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to rezone the 7.5 acre property from R-2 to PID to allow for the expansion of the existing industrial uses. The expansion is proposed in the following two (2) phases: Phase I: 2,400 square foot brick and frame expansion (bldg. #4) to the existing 2,400 square foot brick and frame office building (bldg. #1) - conversion of the 2,275 square foot frame garage building (bldg. #2) into office space. - construction of 18,000 square foot pre -fabricated metal building (bldg. #3) to be used for equipment and product development use of building #5 (frame construction) for storage - 29 paved parking spaces to the north of buildings #1 and 2 to serve the office use. conversion of existing tennis court area to outdoor equipment storage - addition of gravel equipment storage and parking areas along the south, east and west sides of building #3. proposed building heights range from 18 feet to 35 feet (bldg. #3) . Phase II: - expansion of existing building #6 (8,075 square feet total) for storage (pre -fabricated metal construction) - addition of gravel equipment storage area along the south side of building #6. The applicant proposes to access the property utilizing two (2) existing drives from Pleasant Hill Road. A third driveway, currently located between the two shown on the site plan, will be removed. The drives and parking will be paved. The applicant has noted that the hours of operation for the existing businesses on this property are 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m., Monday -Friday. The existing and proposed buildings, parking, drives and areas for equipment storage are noted on the attached site plan. K February 17, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: C. M FILE NO.: Z-6806 The property contains an existing industrial use, with the existing buildings noted on the attached site plan. There are three (3) existing drives to the property from Pleasant Hill Road. The property across Pleasant Hill Road to the north is undeveloped and wooded, as is the property immediately west. There are two (2) single family residences further west. There are single family residences to the east and southeast, with undeveloped property immediately south and southwest. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received two (2) phone calls from persons requesting information on this application. The Quail Run Neighborhood Association was notified of the public hearing. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Pleasant Hill Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 2. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to this street including 5 -foot sidewalk with planned development. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. Close one driveway. 5. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 6. 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. 7. A Grading Permit per Secs. 29-186(c) and (d) will be required with Building Permit. K3 February 17, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6806 E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements to serve property if necessary. AP&L: No Comment received. Arkla: No Comment. Southwestern Bell: No Comment. Water: Contact the Water Work if additional water service is needed. Fire Department: Place fire hydrant per city code. Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details. County Planning: No Comment received. CATA: No Comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planninq Division: This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family at this location. On June 10, 1999 the Planning Commission denied a land use plan from Single Family Residential to recognize an existing use on the site. The proposed zoning change from R-2 Single Family Residential to a Planned Industrial District for expansion of an existing use to expand and construct new industrial buildings is not consistent with the Land Use Plan. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The Chicot West/I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan recommends concentrating development efforts in the more urbanized northern portion of the study area. This property is located in the southern portion of the plan area which the plan viewed as a "urban reserve to be developed as market forces become stronger in the area." Landscape Issues: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. 4 February 17, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6806 A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the southern, eastern and western perimeters. This screen may be a wooden fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings. Because of the size of the proposed expansion, an upgrade will be required in landscaping toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance. G. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on February 2, 2000. The revised plan addresses the concerns as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has shown a phasing plan for the property as requested, as well as the proposed uses and heights for each building. The hours of operation have also been provided. A dumpster area has been shown on the site plan. This area must be screened on three (3) sides with an 8 foot opaque fence or wall. Six (6) foot wood screening fences have also been shown along the south, east and west property lines. The applicant has also shown a ground -mounted sign on the site plan. The proposed sign will be monument -type with a maximum height of 8 feet and a maximum area of 64 square feet. The applicant is providing 29 parking spaces to serve the proposed use of the property. The ordinance would typically require 17 parking spaces to serve the amount of office area proposed. Staff supports the parking plan as proposed. To staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this site plan. The proposed PID should have no adverse effect on the surrounding area. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PID rezoning subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. 5 February 17, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6806 2. Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away from adjacent property. 3. The dumpster area must be screened on three (3) sides with an 8 foot opaque fence or wall. 4. The proposed ground -mounted sign shall be monument type with a maximum height of 8 feet and a maximum area of 64 square feet. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 27, 2000) Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application. Staff described the proposed PID site plan, noting that additional information on the project needed to be provided. Mr. McGetrick noted that the information would be provided to staff. The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed. Mr. McGetrick noted that Pleasant Hill Road was currently an access easement, but the appropriate right-of-way would be dedicated. The landscape and buffer requirements were briefly discussed. It was noted that an upgrade in landscaping would need to be provided. It was also noted that screening of adjacent residential property needed to be provided. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the PID to the full Commission for resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 17, 2000) Mike Batie was present, representing the application. Staff briefly described the PID, with a recommendation of approval with conditions. The Chairman noted that there was one person present with concerns, and asked to hear from him first. Dickson Flake addressed the Commission. He stated that he represented the James Conner family, property owner to the north across Pleasant Hill Road. Mr. Flake stated that he was confident that the applicant would improve this property, but had two concerns. The first concern was that the PID would establish a permanent industrial island. He suggested ways the Commission could address this issue, including tying the PID to the specific property owner or by making a provision that the 0 February 17, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6806 property be used for office if this property owner ever leaves. He also stated that the Land Use Plan for this area should be studied. The second concern related to screening. Mr. Flake stated that the would like screening along the north, street property line. Mike Batie addressed the Commission in support of the application. He briefly explained the project and the surrounding area. He noted that he had four (4) letters of support for the project. Commissioner Earnest commented on the existing Land Use Plan for this area. He noted that this property is shown as single- family. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, noted that the proposed PID was a chance to improve (clean-up) the existing nonconforming use. He stated that staff does not endorse this area turning into an industrial area. He stated that staff felt that this nonconforming use was not going away. Commissioner Muse asked if the PID zoning could be tied to this specific property owner. Mr. Lawson stated that the PID could be tied to the owner if the owner agreed. Mr. Batie stated that financing for the project could not be obtained if the PID were tied to the property owner. Mr. Lawson explained that this PID is for the specific use (existing use) of the property. He noted that the application was being tied to the specific proposed use. He stated that another business could buy-out the existing business and operate under the same PID restrictions. Commissioner Nunnley asked what would happen if the current property owner sold the property to another business with a less intensive use. Mr. Lawson commented that it would not be allowed. Commissioner Nunnley asked if there were any other uses that would be allowed under this PID. rJ February 17, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6806 Mr. Lawson noted that the only uses proposed were the existing uses of the property (CSR Hydro Conduit and James Rogers Excavation). Commissioner Muse asked that if the application were denied, could the nonconforming business continue to operate. Mr. Lawson noted that the existing use could continue, but not expand. Commissioner Rahman commented on the CSR Hydro Conduit use. He stated that he was not concerned -with tying the PID to the specific property owner. A motion was made to approve the PID as recommended by staff. Commissioner Earnest commented on the Land Use Plan being single family. Mr. Lawson noted that staff support was based on the fact that this was a nonconforming use. Commissioner Hawn noted that the uses were on the property when the property was annexed. Commissioner Lowry asked to hear from Mr. Flake. Commissioner Hawn withdrew the previous motion. Mr. Flake noted that the applicant could agree to have the property only operate as an office use if the current business leaves the property. He also asked for screening along the north property line. Mr. Batie noted that he had agreed to screening along the south, east and west property lines, which would be very expensive given the size of the property. He stated that the way the property development plan was designed, the office use would act as a buffer between the shop and outside storage areas and the street to the north. Mr. Batie also noted that the property could not be sold in the future for an office use, given the type of buildings proposed. Commissioner Lowry commented on the industrial use being surrounded by single family uses. Mr. Batie stated that it was the applicant's intent to improve the property. 8 February 17, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6806 A motion was made to approve the PID as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 2 nays, 1 abstention (Nunnley) and 2 absent. E FILE NO.: Z-6806 NAME: CSR Hydro Conduit - Long -Form PID LOCATION: 13701/13707 Pleasant Hill Road DEVELOPER: U -Liner MidAmerica dba CSR Hydro Conduit 13701 Pleasant Hill Road Alexander, AR 72002 AREA: 7.50 acres ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick 319 E. Markham St., Ste. 202 Little Rock, AR 72201 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED USE: Single Family residential, construction maintenance yard Expansion of the existing maintenance yard use VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The property at 13701/13707 Pleasant Hill Road is zoned R-2 with a nonconforming industrial status. There is currently a contractor's maintenance yard (CSR Hydro Conduit) and an excavation company (James Rogers Excavation) occupying the 7.5 acre property. The property has been utilized for these types of uses since prior to the property's annexation in 1980. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing uses by adding new buildings, building additions and equipment storage and parking areas. Based on the proposed expansion, the property must be rezoned. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to rezone the 7.5 acre property from R-2 to PID to allow for the expansion of the existing FILE NO.: Z-6806 (Cont.) B. industrial uses. The expansion is proposed in the following two (2) phases: Phase I: 2,400 square foot brick and frame expansion (bldg. #4) to the existing 2,400 square foot brick and frame office building (bldg. #1) - conversion of the 21275 square foot frame garage building (bldg. #2) into office space. construction of 18,000 square foot pre -fabricated metal building (bldg. #3) to be used for equipment and product development - use of building #5 (frame construction) for storage - 29 paved parking spaces to the north of buildings #1 and 2 to serve the office use. - conversion of existing tennis court area to outdoor equipment storage - addition of gravel equipment storage and parking areas along the south, east and west sides of building #3. - proposed building heights range from 18 feet to 35 feet (bldg. #3) . Phase II: expansion of existing building #6 (8,075 square feet total) for storage (pre -fabricated metal construction) addition of gravel equipment storage area along the south side of building #6. The applicant proposes to access the property utilizing two (2) existing drives from Pleasant Hill Road. A third driveway, currently located between the two shown on the site plan, will be removed. The drives and parking will be paved. The applicant has noted that the hours of operation for the existing businesses on this property are 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m., Monday -Friday. The existing and proposed buildings, parking, drives and areas for equipment storage are noted on the attached site plan. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property contains an existing industrial use, with the existing buildings noted on the attached site plan. There are three (3) existing drives to the property from Pleasant Hill Road. 2 FILE NO.: Z-6806 (Cont.) The property across Pleasant Hill Road to the north is undeveloped and wooded, as is the property immediately west. There are two (2) single family residences further west. There are single family residences to the east and southeast, with undeveloped property immediately south and southwest. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received two (2) phone calls from persons requesting information on this application. The Quail Run Neighborhood Association was notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Pleasant Hill Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 2. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to this street including 5 -foot sidewalk with planned development. 3_ Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. Close one driveway. 5_ Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 6. 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. 7. A Grading Permit per Secs. 29-186(c) and (d) will be required with Building Permit. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements to serve property if necessary. AP&L: No Comment received. Arkla: No Comment. Southwestern Bell: No Comment. Water: Contact the Water Work if additional water service is needed. Fire Department: Place fire hydrant per city code. Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details. 3 FILE NO.: Z-6806 (Cont.) County Planning: No Comment received. CATA: No Comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family at this location. On June 10, 1999 the Planning Commission denied a land use plan from Single Family Residential to recognize an existing use on the site. The proposed zoning change from R-2 Single Family Residential to a Planned Industrial District for expansion of an existing use to expand and construct new industrial buildings is not consistent with the Land Use Plan. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The Chicot West/I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan recommends concentrating development efforts in the more urbanized northern portion of the study area. This property is located in the southern portion of the plan area which the plan viewed as a "urban reserve to be developed as market forces become stronger in the area." Landsca a Issues: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the southern, eastern and western perimeters. This screen may be a wooden fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings. Because of the size of the proposed expansion, an upgrade will be required in landscaping toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance. G. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on February 2, 2000. The revised plan addresses the concerns as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has shown a phasing plan for the property as requested, as well as the proposed uses and heights for 4 FILE NO.: Z-6806 (Cont.) each building. The hours of operation have also been provided. A dumpster area has been shown on the site plan. This area must be screened on three (3) sides with an 8 foot opaque fence or wall. Six (6) foot wood screening fences have also been shown along the south, east and west property lines. The applicant has also shown a ground -mounted sign on the site plan. The proposed sign will be monument -type with a maximum height of 8 feet and a maximum area of 64 square feet. The applicant is providing 29 parking spaces to serve the proposed use of the property. The ordinance would typically require 17 parking spaces to serve the amount of office area proposed. Staff supports the parking plan as proposed. To staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this site plan. The proposed PID should have no adverse effect on the surrounding area. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PID rezoning subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. 2. Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away from adjacent property. 3. The dumpster area must be screened on three (3) sides with an 8 foot opaque fence or wall. 4. The proposed ground -mounted sign shall be monument type with a maximum height of 8 feet and a maximum area of 64 square feet. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 27, 2000) Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application. Staff described the proposed PID site plan, noting that additional information on the project needed to be provided. Mr. McGetrick noted that the information would be provided to staff. The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed. Mr. McGetrick noted that Pleasant Hill Road was currently an access easement, but the appropriate right-of-way would be dedicated. A FILE NO.: Z-6806 (Cont.) The landscape and buffer requirements were briefly discussed. It was noted that an upgrade in landscaping would need to be provided. It was also noted that screening of adjacent residential property needed to be provided. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the PID to the full Commission for resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 17, 2000) Mike Batie was present, representing the application. Staff briefly described the PID, with a recommendation of approval with conditions. The Chairman noted that there was one person present with concerns, and asked to hear from him first. Dickson Flake addressed the Commission. He stated that he represented the James Conner family, property owner to the north across Pleasant Hill Road. Mr. Flake stated that he was confident that the applicant would improve this property, but had two concerns. The first concern was that the PID would - establish a permanent industrial island. He suggested ways the Commission could address this issue, including tying the PID to the specific property owner or by making a provision that the property be used for office if this property owner ever leaves. He also stated that the Land Use Plan for this area should be studied. The second concern related to screening. Mr. Flake stated that thel would like screening along the north, street 1_~ property line. Mike Batie addressed the Commission in support of the application. He briefly explained the project and the surrounding area. He noted that he had four (4) letters of support for the project. Commissioner Earnest commented on the existing Land Use Plan for this area. He noted that this property is shown as single- family. ingle- family. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, noted that the proposed PID was a chance to improve (clean-up) the existing nonconforming use. He stated that staff does not endorse this area turning into an industrial area. He stated that staff felt that this nonconforming use was not going away. 0 FILE NO.: Z-6806 (Cont. Commissioner Muse asked if the PID zoning could be tied to this specific property owner. Mr. Lawson stated that the PID could be tied to the owner if the owner agreed. Mr. Batie stated that financing for the project could not be obtained if the PID were tied to the property owner. Mr. Lawson explained that this PID is for the specific use (existing use) of the property. He noted that the application was being tied to the specific proposed use. He stated that another business could buy-out the existing business and operate under the same PID restrictions. Commissioner Nunnley asked what would happen if the current property owner sold the property to another business with a less intensive use. Mr. Lawson commented that it would not be allowed. Commissioner Nunnley asked if there were any other uses that would be allowed under this PID. Mr. Lawson noted that the only uses proposed were the existing uses of the property (CSR Hydro Conduit and James Rogers Excavation) . Commissioner Muse asked that if the application were denied, could the nonconforming business continue to operate. Mr. Lawson noted that the existing use could continue, but not expand. Commissioner Rahman commented on the CSR Hydro Conduit use. He stated that he was not concerned with tying the PID to the specific property owner. A motion was made to approve the PID as recommended by staff. Commissioner Earnest commented on the Land Use Plan being single family. Mr. Lawson noted that staff support was based on the fact that this was a nonconforming use. Commissioner Hawn noted that the uses were on the property when the property was annexed. Commissioner Lowry asked to hear from Mr. Flake. Commissioner Hawn withdrew the previous motion. 7 FILE NO.: Z-6806 (Cont.) Mr. Flake noted that the applicant could agree to have the property only operate as an office use if the current business leaves the property. He also asked for screening along the north property line. Mr. Batie noted that he had agreed to screening along the south, east and west property lines, which would be very expensive given the size of the property. He stated that the way the property development plan was designed, the office use would act as a buffer between the shop and outside storage areas and the street to the north. Mr. Batie also noted that the property could not be sold in the future for an office use, given the type of buildings proposed. Commissioner Lowry commented on the industrial use being surrounded by single family uses. Mr. Batie stated that it was the applicant's intent to improve the property. A motion was made to approve the PID as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 2 nays, 1 abstention (Nunnley) and 2 absent. 8