HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6828-A Staff AnalysisApril 13,' 2000
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z -6828-A
NAME: Hilton Inn - Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 1900 Peachtree Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT: Herrington Hotel Group LLC
PROPOSAL: To obtain a conditional use permit for a
4 -story, 167 room hotel with a small
lounge and small eating area off the
lobby area, located on the northeast
corner of Peachtree and Centerview
Drives at 1900 Peachtree Drive. The
property is proposed to be re -zoned from
0-3, General Office to 0-2, Office and
Institutional District, by accompanying
Item 17 on this same agenda.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. SITE LOCATION:
This site is located on the northeast corner of the
intersection of Peachtree and Centerview Drives, on the
southwest edge of a large business park development.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This 5 -acre site is currently zoned 0-3, but there is
an accompanying item on this agenda to rezone the
property to 0-2. The surrounding zoning contains a mix
of R-2 Single Family Residential to the southeast and
southwest, 0-3 General Office, to the north and south,
and OS Open Space, and 0-1 Quiet Office to the west and
northwest. The Sandpiper Subdivision is located just to
the southwest of this site. Their pool and clubhouse is
located across Centerview, to the west. There is also a
large PCD for the Summit Mall site on the south side of
I-430.
Staff believes that with the amount of natural
vegetation that the applicant proposes to leave
untouched, plus the vegetation they will replant, that
the site would be compatible with the surrounding area.
April 13',,2000
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z -6828-A
The Sandpiper Neighborhood Association was notified of
the public hearing.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
There would be two access points to this site. The main
entrance would be from Peachtree, with a secondary
access from Centerview, primarily for deliveries.
The applicant has planned for 178 parking spaces. The
proposed 167 -room hotel would generate a parking
requirement of 183 spaces based on one space for each
guestroom plus 10% of that total.
4. -'SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
Because of the grade elevation changes, cross sections
showing proposed methods to handle these changes should
be provided.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as
many existing trees as feasible on this tree covered
site. Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving
trees of six inch caliper or larger.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and
ramps brought up to the current ADA standards. All
sidewalk needs to be place in right-of-way.
b. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk
that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
c. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
18,031. Verify sight distance and spacing with
existing driveway for proposed driveways. (250
feet spacing)
d. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
e. Easements for proposed stormwater detention
facilities are required.
2
April 13,'2000
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6828-A
f. 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.
6. UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT. COMMENTS:
Water: An acreage charge of $150.00 per acre applies
in addition to normal charges. Due to the nature of
this facility, installation of a reduced pressure
zone backflow preventer will be required on the
domestic water service for this facility.
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with
easements to serve property. Capacity analysis
required, contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for
details.
Southwestern Bell: No comments received.
ARKLA: No comments received.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code.
CATA: There is no bus service in this area.
7. STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit
for a 4 -story, 167 -room hotel on property that they
expect to be zoned 0-2, Office and Institutional. There
is an accompanying item on this agenda to rezone this
property from 0-3 to 0-2. The proposed uses include a
small eating area and a small lounge, both of which are
designed for use primarily by hotel guests. The lounge
would not be used for bands or other entertainment.
It's more of an open sitting area in the lobby area.
This site is located in a mixture of Office,
Residential, and Open Space zoning. It is at the
entrance to the Sandpiper Subdivision.
The proposed plan exceeds setback requirements of 25
feet on all sides, and is within the height limit of 78
3
April 13', 2000
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z -6828=A
feet. The amount of parking proposed is considered
adequate even though it is 5 spaces below the minimum
required. A variance would be required for the reduced
parking.
The applicant has requested they be allowed to place a
sign, consisting of individual metal letters, on the
retaining wall near the entrance drive from Peachtree.
The ordinance prohibits signs on walls, but Staff feels
this would be a reasonable variance request and blend
in better with the surroundings.
Staff believes that this would be a reasonable use of
the site, and that the site would be compatible with
the surrounding area considering the amount of natural
vegetation that the applicant proposes to leave
untouched, plus the vegetation they will replant.
8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a. Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
b. Comply with Public Works Comments.
c. Comply with Fire Department Comment.
d. All exterior lighting must be low intensity and
directed downward and inward to the property and
not towards any residential zoned area.
Staff also recommends approval of variances for a
reduced number of parking spaces, and a sign on the
retaining wall near the Peachtree entrance drive.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (MARCH 9, 2000)
Frank Riggins was present representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Public works reviewed their comments, concentrating
particularly on the sight distance question for the driveway
on Centerview. They stated that the distance was
4
April 13; 2000
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6828-A
satisfactory, but that the driveway spacing to the next
driveway north along Centerview needed to be 275 feet to
provide the needed sight distance.
Other Staff members reviewed the signage and parking
requirements and noted the variances needed for both. The
applicant confirmed the 24-hour operation for the hotel.
Staff asked the applicant to provide the proposed square
footage for the restaurant and lounge.
There being no further issues, the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2000)
Wes Lowder, Mehlburger Firm, and Rick Martin, Herrington
Hotel Group, were present representing the application.
There were several interested parties, for and against,
present. At the request of Chairperson Adcock, Mr. Carney
of the City Planning Staff explained the Commission's policy
whenever there are eight or fewer Commissioners present at a
hearing that an applicant can request deferral without it
being counted against them.
Mr. Lowder asked for an explanation of options available to
allow those that did attend to speak and then still request
deferral. After a short discussion and comments from
Commissioners stating their preference to hear all the
comments at one hearing, Mr. Lowder chose to request
deferral until the April 13 Public Hearing.
A motion was made to defer the application until the
April 13, 2000, Public Hearing. The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 13, 2000)
Wes Lowder, from The Mehlburger Firm, was present
representing the application. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a
5
April 13', 2000
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6828-A
recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the
conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation," paragraph 8
above.
Mr. Carney from the Planning Staff updated the Commission
about a meeting that was held immediately after the hearing
on March 30 between the applicants and individuals from the
neighborhood. The meeting answered many of the neighborhood
concerns and the consensus of those present seemed to be
much more supportive.
Mr. Lowder briefly reviewed the proposal and meetings held
with the neighborhood association. He commented about the
large size of the landscape buffers they included in the
plan, and stated he didn't feel an office complex on this
site could stand to leave that size of a buffer. He added
that the retaining walls would match the style of the rest
of the West Lake Office Complex in which this site exists.
Chairperson Adcock asked about traffic at Peachtree and
Shackleford. She suggested that the hotel direct their
customers down Centerview and Executive Center Drive to the
traffic signal onto Shackleford to reduce traffic at
Peachtree and Shackleford. She next asked Mr. Turner, Public
Works Director, about how to deal with a traffic problem at
Peachtree and Shackleford, should it develop. Mr. Turner
stated that he didn't expect a problem to develop because
the nature of hotel traffic would not have particular peak
times like an office building would. He added that even the
schedule of hotel staff shift changes would not coincide
with the normal workday peak times. Mr. Turner did not
anticipate that the hotel would cause any concern at the
Peachtree/Shackleford intersection.
Commissioner Lowry commented that he attended that meeting
after the March 30 hearing and said it showed what could be
done when two sides meet together and talk things out. He
was impressed by how it was handled on both sides and
thanked all participants for their participation.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to
include staff comments and recommendations, and the
applicant's concessions. The motion passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent.
C