Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6957-F Staff AnalysisAugust 18, 2005 ITEM NAME: Value Place Hotel Revised Short -form PD -O LOCATION: Located at 21 Remington Drive DEVELOPER: Value Place Hotel 4700 Zero Street Fort Smith, AR 72903 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter creek Court, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 3.63 Acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 Hotel — 120 Rooms PROPOSED ZONING: PD -O FILE N FT. NEW STREET: 0 Z -6957-F PROPOSED USE: Hotel — 120 Rooms — Placement of signage 100 -feet in height and 300 square feet in area. VARIANCESANAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On June 3, 2004, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a request to rezone this site from 0-3 to PD -O to allow the development a 120 -room hotel facility. The applicant indicated the proposed facility would contain 126 parking spaces and be a five -story structure with a maximum height of sixty feet. The applicant proposed signage on each end of the proposed building and one freestanding sign to be located adjacent to 1-430. The freestanding sign was to be a maximum of twenty-five feet and one hundred sixty square feet in area. The proposed site plan indicated there would not be any amenities associated with the proposed development such as meeting facilities, a bar or restaurant. August 18, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z -6957-F The Board of Directors approved this request at their July 20, 2005, Public Hearing by the adoption of Ordinance No. 19,142. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant is now proposing a revision of the previously approved PD -O to allow the placement of a one hundred foot tall sign with a three hundred square foot sign area. The applicant has indicated they originally bought the site with the understanding a pole sign was allowed with a maximum height of thirty-five feet. The applicant indicated they felt the thirty-five foot pole height would sit far enough over the tree line that the signage would be visible from 1-430. The applicant has stated with the construction of the new facility they have learned the thirty-five foot pole will in fact not be visible from the roadway since the developers have maintained as many trees as possible on the site. The applicant has indicated Value Place Hotel offers rooms at an affordable weekly rate,, which requires a building and/or sign with good visibility from a high traffic volume road. The applicant has stated with this concept they do not have any room in their budget to make up for poor visibility with a costly advertising campaign. The applicant has stated for safety reasons, allowing them to build a pole sign with the indicated height and that is visible from 1-430 will give potential customers more time to make the Colonel Glenn exit. The applicant has stated as it stands now those who are northbound on 1-430 will have very little time between seeing the building and having to be in the proper position to take the Colonel Glenn exit. The applicant's cover letter states Value Place will have invested $4MM into the Little Rock community when their project is completed. The applicant states the success of their concept depends on high visibility locations, which they felt was available when they purchased the location. The applicant states they will offer the valuable service of providing the Little Rock areas with low-cost, long -tern accommodations. The applicant is requesting the chance to make their establishment visible from 1-430. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The hotel site is currently under construction and is located at the end of Remington Drive, a recently constructed cul-de-sac. Remington Drive has been constructed with curb and gutter. Sidewalks are in place along a large portion of the roadway. 2 August 18, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6957-F Remington College is located to the south of the site sitting somewhat below the proposed site elevation. To the north of the site is vacant C-3 and C-4 zoned property. An automobile dealership is located to the north of the site on C-4 zoned property. Other uses in the area include single-family located along Talley Road and a scattering of single-family homes is also located along nearby Colonel Glenn Road. Also located along Colonel Glenn Road are a number of non-residential uses including office uses, restaurant uses and office warehouse uses. To the east of the area accessed from Stagecoach Road is a water treatment facility owned by Central Arkansas Water. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: ja As of this writing staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident. The Stagecoach Dodd Neighborhood Association, along with all property owners located within 200 -feet of the site and all residents who could be identified located within 300 feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. No comment on proposed placements of sign. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available not adversely affected. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center -Point Ener : Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATH: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. 3 August 18, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6957-F F. ISSUESITECHN ICAUDES IGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the 65th Street West Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Suburban Office for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to a PD -O (Planned Development —Office) to allow additional signage fronting Interstate 1-430. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Remington Drive is shown as a Local Commercial Street on the Master Street Plan. Local Commercial Streets are to be built to Collector Street Standards and provide access to adjacent commercial/office properties. Dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Pecan Lake / Stagecoach -Dodd Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning and Land Use Goal states: "Maintain and encourage single-family and low density residential developments in the residential area of the neighborhood, while encouraging responsible non-residential development in area currently reserved for such uses on the Future Land Use Plan," with specific action statement "Oppose the construction of additional billboards in the Stagecoach -Dodd planning area, including 1-430." Even though this revision is not to allow a billboard, it would place a large sign within the planning area. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 28, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated the proposal included the placement of sign 100 feet high and 300 square feet in area. Staff stated they had concerns with the placement of signage with the indicated height and area on the site. Staff stated the proposed signage was just less than three times the height and two times the area typically allowed for commercially zoned property. Staff noted 1-430 was a scenic corridor and they felt the placement of signage this large was not in keeping with previous approval for the roadway. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item and the committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. 0 August 18, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6957-F H. ANALYSIS: There were no issues raised at the July 28, 2005, Subdivision Committee needing a response. The applicant's proposal includes the placement of a sign 100 -feet in height and 300 square feet in area. The applicant has indicated the height and area is necessary to allow the hotel patrons ample time to see the location and make the proper lane changes and exit from Colonel Glenn Road. For the purpose of comparison, the definitions section of the Zoning Ordinance defines a Painted bulletin as a billboard containing up to eight hundred square feet in sign area and a poster panel as a billboard containing up to three hundred square feet of sign area. Billboards are limited to Commercially (C-3 and C-4) and Industrially (1-2 and 1-3) zoned property and are not permitted along scenic corridors. The maximum height of a billboard is 35 feet on commercially zoned property and 45 -feet on industrially zoned property. The ordinance further states the height shall be measured from the elevation of the centerline of the adjacent traffic lanes to the highest point of the billboard. The site is located above the elevation of the adjacent roadway. Staff is not supportive of the applicant's request. The applicant's request is somewhat similar in size to a billboard and is more than two times the allowable height of a billboard. As previously stated, the site is located along the 1-430 Scenic Corridor which "in the opinion of the Board of Directors, exhibits special aesthetic and visual characteristics worthy of protection through enhanced billboard regulations" according to Ordinance No. 19,266 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on January 18, 2005. Staff does not feel the proposed signage is appropriate for the site. The applicant was previously approved signage, which exceeded signage allowed in office zones or 26 -feet in height and one hundred sixty square feet in area. Staff feels the approved signage more appropriate for the location. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 18, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated staff was referring to the proposed sign as a billboard. He stated the request was not a billboard but a sign that would allow his clients visibility from the adjoining roadways. 5 August 18, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6957-F He stated his clients originally bought the site thinking the previously approved signage would serve their needs. He stated the developers were forced to grade the site, which reduced the overall height of the site thus reducing the height of the proposed sign. He stated with the current elevation of the site and the proposed sign height the sign would not be visible fro the nearby roadway. Mr. Storm Nolan addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the hotel chain was a low cost hotel, which relied on visibility for advertisement. He stated the previously approved sign cannot be seen above the existing trees. He stated his firm employed a crane service to project 100 -feet in the area to indicate the visibility of the sign from nearby roadways. He stated although the height sounded extremely high and sounded quiet large this would not be the appearance from the roadway when put in place. He stated with the saving of trees on the site the height was necessary to get above the treetops. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the site was not the site for a sign as large and tall as being requested. She stated 1-430 was a scenic corridor, which should be protected. She stated if the sign was approved this would set precedence and there would be a number of request to allow large signage all along the corridor. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed request. The applicant questioned the signage staff would support. Staff stated the applicant was previously approved signage larger and taller than was allowed in office zones. Staff stated they would be hard pressed to support signage any larger than was previously approved or 25 -feet in height and 160 square feet in area. The applicant questioned if staff would support a roof sign. Staff stated roof signs were prohibited per the City's sign ordinance. Staff stated the applicant was not required to grade the site. Staff stated the applicant chose to grade the site to reduce the driveway grade and more closely match the cul-de-sac. Staff also stated the applicant had indicated the preservation of trees on the site. Staff stated the applicant was required to preserve the trees as a part of the original approval. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed signage and the previously approved signage. The Commission questioned if the applicant had contacted the Highway Department to inquire about logo's on the highway signs. The applicant stated they were pursuing the option of placing logo's on the highway department signage. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. 9