Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7563 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-7563 NAME: Rock House Short -form POD LOCATION: 715 North University Avenue DEVELOPER: Rock House, LLC 11500 North Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 72212 FN[;INFFR- Rickett Engineering, Inc. 78 Aberdeen Drive Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 1.72 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: R-5, Urban Residential District ALLOWED USES: High Density Residential Units of not more than 36 -units per acre PROPOSED ZONING: POD PROPOSED USE: Office (General and Professional) with the 25 percent of the gross floor area being available for selected commercial uses VARIAN CESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing the placement of a two-story office building consisting of 18,000 square feet of general and professional office uses with provisions for some light commercial uses should they fit with office occupancy. The proposed site plan includes fifty-nine on-site parking spaces. FILE NO.: Z-7563 (Cont.) The applicant is requesting to be allowed 25 percent of the gross floor area (4,500 square feet) be allowed to be utilized by the following listed uses: Barber/Beauty Shop, Book and Stationary Store, Drugstore, Florist, Optic Shop, Clothing, Hobby Shop, Jewelry, or Tailor Shop. . Included in the filing is a petition for abandonment of Grant Street and "G" Street. Grant Street currently ends at the intersection of "F" Street. The applicant is proposing an extension of Grant Street approximately 120 feet from "F" Street to the property line and creating adequate turn around in the .parking lot for emergency vehicles. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property now consists of twelve residentially zoned lots in Blocks 9 and 10 of the Lincoln Park Subdivision and a portion of Grant Street which has never been constructed. The property is bounded by University Avenue to the west, "G" Street (not constructed) to the north, a closed -alley to the east, and a dwelling and small office building to the south. Steep grades to the east and north lead down to a drainage canal. Access to the site from University Avenue is right turn only. An abandoned house with a stone exterior currently sits on the site. Frontage along University Avenue is predominantly occupied by office and commercial uses, with a few remaining single-family dwellings. To the east of the site are residential uses adjacent to the drainage canal. Other uses in the area include the Catholic Boys school a strip retail center and a public library. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association, Evergreen Neighborhood Association, all owners of property 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. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. The site plan as proposed cannot be approved. An un -stable fill was placed on this site in the regulated floodway of Coleman Creek and there are un -resolved enforcement issues. A large portion of the site is within the mapped floodway and floodplain. Before site plan review, a restoration plan must be provided for the site, and a required for a Letter of Map Revision must be prepared and submitted through this office to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2. All fill slopes must conform to the land alteration ordinance. Slopes must be at 3:1 or benched with erosion protection provided. 2 FILE NO.: Z-7563 (Cont.)_ 3. A special grading permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section 8-283 prior to any construction. Approval from the Little Rock District Corps of Engineers may also be required. 4. University Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 -feet from centerline will be required. 5. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to the street including 5 -foot sidewalk with the planned development. The right turn lane for "H" Street would need to be extended across the frontage. 6.., Contact Traffic engineering at (501) 379-1816 for guidance of the driveway location and configuration. The design must provide for a directional right -in, right -out island and minimize traffic conflicts -near the right-of-way line. 7. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. 8. Dedication of the Floodway and a 25 -foot access easement adjacent to the floodway will be required. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Existing sewer main on property. No permanent construction within five foot either side of existing sewer main. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: The proposed right-of-way will require approval from the SBC right-of-way engineer. Contact SBC at 373-5112 for additional details. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas. Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met before service is resumed. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine the location of public and/or private fire hydrant(s), which will be required. A water main extension and additional fire hydrant(s) will be installed at the Developer's expense. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact CAW at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire Department: Increase the south driveway to Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the 918-3752 for additional information. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. 3 a minimum of 20 -feet in width. Little Rock Fire Department at FILE_NO.: Z-7563_ (Cont.) F. G ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights — Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Office Development for 0-1 Quiet Office Uses. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning & Land Use goal lists an objective of no net loss of residential units by demolition or conversion to other uses. Landscape: A portion of the proposed land use buffer along the southern perimeter is less than the 6 -foot 9 -inch minimum allowed. This takes into account the reduction allowed within the designated mature area of the city. A 6 -foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings, is required to help screen this property from the residential properties to the east and south. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 8, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated the site plan as proposed could not be approved. Staff stated an un -stable fill was placed on the site in the regulated floodway of Coleman Creek and there were un -resolved enforcement issues. Staff stated a large portion of the site was within the mapped floodway and floodplain. Staff stated a restoration plan had been filed and approved by the Public Works Department. Staff stated before a site plan review could be approved located in the floodway, a restoration plan would have to be provided for the site, and a Letter of Map Revision prepared and submitted through the City to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Staff stated the process was quite lengthy and they felt the request should be withdrawn awaiting the FEMA decision. Additional Planning, Landscaping and Public Works comments were addressed to allow the applicant information that would be expected if and when the site were approved for development. There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. 4 FILE NO.: Z-7563 (Cont. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised preliminary site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the January 8, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the previously approved restoration plan will be implemented for the site. Areas of fill will be removed from the floodway and the slopes will be flattened to a maximum of 3:1. The applicant has indicated an easement along the rear parking area will be dedicated for access to the floodway. The applicant has also indicated a dedication of right-of-way for University Avenue from the existing centerline of fifty-five feet as required by the Master Street Plan ordinance. The applicant has also indicated a right -turn lane will be installed adjacent to the site and the applicant will coordinate with Traffic Engineering to determine the exact requirements. The applicant has indicated the proposed signage on the site plan along with a note stating the signage will be a ground mounted sign and comply with the sign area allowed in office zones or a maximum of -six feet in height and seventy-two square feet in area. Staff is supportive of the proposed signage. The applicant has provided a proposed maximum building height of forty-five feet. The applicant is proposing a two story building. The proposed elevation indicates the building will contain a metal roof and the building will contain glass fronts. The applicant has indicated. architectural plans have not been finalized indicating construction materials have not been fully determined. Staff would suggest the building follow design recommendations set forth by the Urban Land Institute for redevelopment of the area. The site lies in the secondary area reviewed by the Urban Land Institute for redevelopment possibilities (University Avenue from Lee Street north to Evergreen Drive. The primary focus of the study was the area along* West Markham Street from Pine Street to University Avenue and on University Avenue from West Markham Street to Lee Street.) "The panel did not suggest changes of the northern portion of the secondary area, other than to continue to recognize it as a Hillcrest neighborhood border that needs to be protected." The panel suggested the adoption of specific guidelines and controls that would result in less visual clutter and provide greater convenience for pedestrians. The panel also stated the design guidelines can help to safeguard the Hillcrest neighborhood and concentrate mixed use development. The panel suggested the adoption of design guidelines that would ensure compatibility with the bordering Hillcrest residential neighborhood. Staff feels the building could be designed and constructed to enhance the neighborhood with regard to architectural style and construction materials. The applicant has indicated a desire to close portions of two (2) streets located within the development. The applicant has indicated a portion of Grant Street will 5 FILE NO.: Z-7563 [Cont. be closed from the applicant's northern property line to the applicant's southern property line or approximately 210 feet. The applicant is also requesting the closure of a portion of "G" Street from University Avenue to the applicant's eastern property line. The applicant is the sole owner of the properties of Grant Street. There is an adjoining property owner to the north, which would gain the northern portion of the abandoned Grant Street right-of-way. Staff has been contacted by the property owner located to the south of the site stating his desire to close Grant Street from "F" Street to the intersection with "G" Street (the northern boundary of the applicant's property). There are existing utilities located in these right-of-ways and all would be required to be maintained as utility easements. Staff feels this issue should be resolved prior to approval of the proposed rezoning request. Staff feels should the street be closed from "F" Street to the applicant's southern property line the site plan will change significantly. The proposed site plan indicates a total of fifty-nine parking spaces. The typical minimum parking required for an 18,000 square foot office building would be forty-five parking spaces. The proposed parking is more than adequate to meet the typical minimum parking demand. Staff is supportive of the proposed use of the property as general and professional office uses and the allowance of up to twenty-five percent of the gross floor area to be utilized by the specified uses listed in paragraph A of this report. Since the applicant is requesting only general and professional office ues for seventy-five percent of the gross floor area, not a broader list of uses, such as 0-1, 0-2 or 0-3 with the associated accessory uses; staff supports the specific proposed uses for the remaining twenty-five percent. The proposed use is consistent with the future land use plan. Staff would however suggest the overall design be given consideration and the recommendations of the Urban Land Institute be followed to protect the integrity of the neighborhood. Staff also recommends the applicant resolve outstanding issues related to the closure of "F" Street prior to I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the right-of-way issue related to the closure of "F" Street be resolved prior to consideration of the rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION; (JANUARY 29, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated a portion of the request was to close Grant Street within the development. Staff stated the property owner to the south was also requesting the closure of Grant Street adjacent to his property. Staff stated if the street south of the development were closed then this would affect the proposed site plan currently submitted for review. Staff presented a FILE NO.: Z-7563 (Cont. recommendation of deferral to the March 11, 2004 Public Hearing to allow the owner of the property to the south sufficient time to make application for the street closure adjacent to his property and to allow the Commission to review the Grant Street street closure request at the same hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 11, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating a deferral was being requested. Staff stated they were requesting the deferral to the March 25, 2004 Planning Commission Public Hearing to allow the item to be discussed with an item filed for the March 25, 2004 Public Hearing related to the requested street closure. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as presented by staff by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 25, 2004) Mr. Todd Hart was present representing the request. There were two registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff then presented Item No. 1 with a recommendation of denial of the request. Mr. Haywood Weedman addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was the property owner located to the south of the proposed Rock House Development and he was requesting the entire roadway be closed or no portion of the roadway be closed. He stated the proposed road would run adjacent to the rear of his home and he was opposed to the increased traffic. Mr. Weedman stated this was one of the few remaining portions of Grant Street remaining from West Markham Street to Cantrell Road. Mr. Todd Hart addressed the Commission as the applicant. He stated the existing house on the site was in disrepair and was no longer livable. He stated the desire was to close two sections of streets, a portion of Grant Street and a portion of F Street, to allow the development to occur. He stated it was unlikely that Grant Street would ever continue due to grades and the creek along the north property line. He stated the desire of the development was to have two access points. He stated as indicated by staff the development would be difficult if there was only one access point from University Avenue. 7 FILE NO.: Z-7563 Cont.) Commissioner Adcock questioned if the two access points were critical to the development. Mr. Hart stated the two access. points would better serve the development. Commissioner Adcock questioned if there was a median cut on "F" Street at University Avenue. Mr. Hart stated there was not. Mr. Weedman stated he was unaware the proposed developers were proposing to construct the undeveloped proportion of Grant Street at this time. He stated the developers indicated to him that the road would be constructed in the future. Commissioner Rector questioned if he was opposed to the office development. Mr. Weedman stated he was not happy with the development but he was not opposed to the office development. Mr. Peyton Rice addressed the Commission. He stated the owned property to the northeast of the proposed development. He stated his request was to landscape the proposed wall structure to enhance the appearance.- He stated currently he had two apartment buildings on his property and he was considering development of two additional buildings. He stated he had received a landscape plan only today and was requesting a deferral of the item until the landscape plan could be assessed to ensure it was sufficient to screen the proposed wall. Commissioner Lowry indicated the proposed development would be required to comply with the landscape ordinance and buffer requirements. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed site and the illegal fill that had taken place in previous years. Commissioner Langlais questioned staff comments concerning the proposed map revision. Staff stated the applicant had indicated there would not be a map revision and all the fill material located in the floodway would be removed. Chairman Rahman stated there were only eight Commissioners present. He stated previous Commission policy was to offer the applicant a deferral if there were eight or fewer Commissioners present. Mr. Hart indicated he wished to continue. Mr. Weedman indicated his desire was for a two-week deferral. A motion was made to defer both item to the April 8, 2004 Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 2 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 8, 2004) Mr. Todd Hart was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented a brief overview indicating the item was deferred from the March 25, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff stated there had not been changes or modifications since the previous meeting. E:3 FILE NO.: Z-7563 Cont. Mr. Hart stated the development had relocated the dumpster away from the residential property to the south and would limit the service of the dumpsters to normal office hours. He stated the development would also require service vehicles to access the site from South University Avenue. Mr. Hal Kemp addressed the Commission in opposition to the street closure request within the development. He stated the developer was requesting the abandonment of undeveloped Grant Street and undeveloped "G" Street within the development and his client was opposed to the closure. Mr. Kemp stated consistency of treatment was an issue for his client (Item #2 — File No. G-23-334). Mr. Haywood Weedman addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed street closure. Me. Weedman requested the Commission deny the applicant's request for the closure of undeveloped Grant Street and undeveloped "G" Street. Mr. Hart addressed the Commission indicating access was a concern. He stated without the access from the south via Grant Street the development would be difficult to market. He stated the desire was to allow Hillcrest traffic the ability to access the site without entering North University Avenue. There was a general discussion concerning the abandonment of the proposed right-of- way and if the development could be constructed without any abandonment's. Mr. Hart stated the development would be difficult to construct without the closure of the undeveloped streets. A motion was made to approve the abandonment of the proposed streets within the development. The motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 7 noes and 0 absent. Commissioner Rector stated he felt it was the desire of the Commission to be supportive of the proposed development and the redevelopment of Mid -Town. He stated absent the equality and the issues brought up by Mr. Kemp and Mr. Weedman to limit access to house the Commission would support the Rock House Development. He stated he would form this statement in a motion. There was not a second. Mr. Hart stated his desire was to more forward with a development. He requested the Commission allow him to amend his request. A motion was made to expunge the previous vote. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. Mr. Hart amended his request to include no access. from the south maintaining only access from South University Avenue. The applicant stated the POD included the abandonment of Grant Street and "G" Street and his amendment included limiting the hours of dumpster service to normal business hours. . D FILE NO.: Z-7563 (Cont. A motion was made to approve the request as filed and to place a condition on the approval that the abandonment of the south '/2 of Grant Street be included when the item was forwarded to the Board of Directors. The motion carried -by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 10 FILE NO.: Z-7563 NAME: Rock House Short -form POD LOCATION: 715 North University Avenue DEVELOPER: Rock House, LLC 11500 North Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 72212 ENGINEER: Rickett Engineering, Inc. 78 Aberdeen Drive Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 1.72 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: R-5, Urban Residential District ALLOWED USES High Density Residential Units of not more than 36 -units per acre PROPOSED ZONING: POD PROPOSED USE: Office (General and Professional) -with the 25 percent of the gross floor area being available for selected commercial uses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSALIREQUEST: The applicant is proposing the placement of a two-story office building consisting of 18,000 square feet of general and professional office uses with provisions for some light commercial uses should they fit with office occupancy. The proposed site plan includes fifty-nine on-site parking spaces. FILE NO.: Z-7563 (Cont. The applicant is requesting to be allowed 25 percent of the gross floor area (4,500 square feet) be allowed to be utilized by the following listed uses: Barber/Beauty Shop, Book and Stationary Store, Drugstore, Florist, Optic Shop, Clothing, Hobby Shop, Jewelry, or Tailor Shop. Included in the filing is a petition for abandonment of Grant Street and "G" Street. Grant Street currently ends at the intersection of "F" Street. The applicant is proposing an extension of Grant Street approximately 120 feet from "F" Street to the property line and creating adequate turn around in the parking lot for emergency vehicles. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property now consists of twelve residentially zoned lots in Blocks 9 and 10 of the Lincoln Park Subdivision and a portion of Grant Street which has never been constructed. The property is bounded by University Avenue to the west, "G" Street (not constructed) to the north, a closed alley to the east, and a dwelling and small office building to the south. Steep grades to the east and north lead down to a drainage canal. Access to the site from University Avenue is right turn only. An abandoned house with a stone exterior currently sits on the site. Frontage along University Avenue is predominantly occupied by office and commercial uses, with a few remaining single-family dwellings. To the east of the site are residential uses adjacent to the drainage canal. Other uses in the area include the Catholic Boys school a strip retail center and a public library. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association, Evergreen Neighborhood Association, all owners of property 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. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. The site plan as proposed cannot be approved. An un -stable fill was placed on this site in the regulated floodway of Coleman Creek and there are un -resolved enforcement issues. A large portion of the site is within the mapped floodway and floodplain. Before site plan review, a restoration plan must be provided for the site, and a required for a Letter of Map Revision must be prepared and submitted through this office to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2. All fill slopes must conform to the land alteration ordinance. Slopes must be at 3:1 or benched with erosion protection provided. 6 FILE NO.: Z-7563 Cont.) 3. A special grading permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section 8-283 prior to any construction. Approval from the Little Rock District Corps of Engineers may also be required. 4. University Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 -feet from centerline will be required. 5. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to the street including 5 -foot sidewalk with the planned development. The right turn lane -for "H" Street would need to be extended across the frontage. 6. Contact Traffic engineering at (501) 379-1816 for guidance of the driveway location and configuration. The design must provide for a directional right -in, right -out island and minimize traffic conflicts near the right-of-way line. 7. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. 8. Dedication of the Floodway and a 25 -foot access easement adjacent to the floodway will be required. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Existing sewer main on property. No permanent construction within five foot either side of existing sewer main. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: The proposed right-of-way will require approval from the SBC right-of-way engineer. Contact SBC at 373-5112 for additional details. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met before service is resumed. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine the location of public and/or private fire hydrant(s), which will be required. A water main extension and additional fire hydrant(s) will be installed at the Developer's expense. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact CAW at 992=2438 for additional details. Fire Department: Increase the south driveway to a minimum of 20 -feet in width. Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional information. Counly Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. 3 FILE NO.: Z-7563 (Cont. F. G ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights — Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Office Development for 0-1 Quiet Office Uses. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning & Land Use goal lists an objective of no net loss of residential units by demolition or conversion to other uses. Landscape: A portion of the proposed land use buffer along the southern perimeter is less than the 6 -foot 9 -inch minimum allowed. This takes into account the reduction allowed within the designated mature area of the city. A 6 -foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings; is required to help screen this property from the residential properties to the east and south. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 8, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated the site plan as proposed could not be approved. Staff stated an un -stable fill was placed on the site in the regulated floodway of Coleman Creek and there were un -resolved enforcement issues. Staff stated a large portion of the site was within the mapped floodway and floodplain. Staff stated.a restoration plan had been filed and approved by the Public Works Department. Staff stated before a site plan review could be approved located in the floodway, a restoration plan would have to be provided for the site, and a Letter of Map. Revision prepared and submitted through the City to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Staff stated the process was quite lengthy and they felt the request should be withdrawn awaiting the FEMA decision. Additional Planning, Landscaping and Public Works comments were addressed to allow the applicant information that would be expected if and when the site were approved for development. There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. 4 • FILE NO.: Z-7563 (Cont. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised preliminary site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the January 8, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the previously approved restoration plan will be implemented for the site. Areas of fill will be removed from the floodway and the slopes will be flattened to a maximum of V.. The applicant has indicated an easement along the rear parking area will be dedicated for access to the floodway. The applicant has also indicated a dedication of right-of-way for University Avenue from the existing centerline of fifty-five feet as required by the Master Street Plan ordinance. The applicant has also indicated a right -turn lane will be installed adjacent to the site and the applicant will coordinate with Traffic Engineering to determine the exact requirements. The applicant has indicated the proposed signage on the site plan along with a note stating the signage will be a ground mounted sign and comply with the sign area allowed in office zones or a maximum of six feet in height and seventy-two square feet in area. Staff is supportive of the proposed signage. The applicant has provided a proposed maximum building height of forty-five feet. The applicant is proposing a two story building. The proposed elevation indicates the building will contain a metal roof and the building will contain glass fronts. The applicant has indicated architectural plans have not been finalized indicating construction materials have not been fully determined. Staff would suggest the building follow design recommendations set forth by the Urban Land Institute for redevelopment of the area. The site lies in the secondary area reviewed by the Urban Land Institute for redevelopment possibilities (University Avenue from Lee Street north to Evergreen Drive. The primary focus of the study was the area along West Markham Street from Pine Street to University Avenue and on University Avenue from West Markham Street to Lee Street.) "The panel did not suggest changes of the northern portion of the secondary area, other than to continue to recognize it as a Hillcrest neighborhood border that needs to be protected." The panel suggested the adoption of specific guidelines and controls that would result in less visual clutter and provide greater convenience for pedestrians. The panel also stated the design guidelines can help to safeguard the Hillcrest neighborhood and concentrate mixed use development. The panel suggested the adoption of design guidelines that would ensure compatibility with the bordering Hillcrest residential neighborhood. Staff feels the building could be designed and constructed to enhance the neighborhood with regard to architectural style and construction materials. The applicant has indicated a desire to close portions of two (2) streets located within the development. The applicant has indicated a portion of Grant Street will 5 FILE NO.: Z-7563 (Cont. be closed from the applicant's northern property line to the applicant's southern property line or approximately 210 feet. The. applicant is also requesting the closure of a portion of "G" Street from University Avenue to the applicant's eastern property line. The applicant is the sole owner of the properties of Grant Street. There is an adjoining property owner to the north, which would gain the northern portion of the abandoned Grant Street right-of-way. Staff has been contacted by the property owner located to the south of the site stating his desire to close Grant Street from "F" Street to the intersection with "G" Street (the northern boundary of the applicant's property). There are existing utilities located in these right-of-ways and all would be required to be maintained as utility easements. Staff feels this issue should be resolved prior to approval of the proposed rezoning request. Staff feels should the street be closed from "F" Street to the applicant's southern property line the site plan will change significantly. The proposed site plan indicates a total of fifty-nine parking spaces. The typical minimum parking required for an 18,000 square foot office building would be forty-five parking spaces. The proposed parking is more than adequate to meet the typical minimum parking demand. Staff is supportive of the proposed use of the property as general and professional office uses and the allowance of up to twenty-five percent of the gross floor area to be utilized by the specified uses listed in paragraph A of this report. Since the applicant is requesting only general and professional office ues for seventy-five percent of the gross floor area, not a broader list of uses, such as 0-1, 0-2 or 0-3 with the associated accessory uses; staff supports the specific proposed uses for the remaining twenty-five percent. The proposed use is consistent with the future land use plan. Staff would however suggest the overall design be given consideration and the recommendations of the Urban Land Institute be followed to protect the integrity of the neighborhood. Staff also recommends the applicant resolve outstanding issues related to the closure of "P Street prior to I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the right-of-way issue related to the closure of "F" Street be resolved prior to consideration of the rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated a portion of the request was to close Grant Street within the development. Staff stated the property owner to the south was also requesting the closure of Grant Street adjacent to his property. Staff stated if the street south of the development were closed then this would affect the proposed site plan currently submitted for review. Staff presented a FILE NO.: Z-7563 Cont. recommendation of deferral to the March 11, 2004 Public Hearing to allow the owner of the property to the south sufficient time to make application for the street closure adjacent to his property and to allow the Commission to review the Grant Street street closure request at the same hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 11, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating a deferral was being requested. Staff stated they were requesting the deferral to the March 25, 2004 Planning Commission Public Hearing to allow the item to be discussed with an item filed for the March 25, 2004 Public Hearing related to the requested street closure. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as presented by staff by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 25, 2004) Mr. Todd Hart was present representing the request. There were two registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff then presented Item No. 1 with a recommendation of denial of the request. Mr. Haywood Weedman addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was the property owner located to the south of the proposed Rock House Development and he was requesting the entire roadway be closed or no portion of the roadway be closed. He stated the proposed road would run adjacent to the rear of his home and he was opposed to the increased traffic. Mr. Weedman stated this was one of the few remaining portions of Grant Street remaining from West Markham Street to Cantrell Road. Mr. Todd Hart addressed the Commission as the applicant. He stated the existing house on the site was in disrepair and was no longer livable. He stated the desire was to close two sections of streets, a portion of Grant Street and a portion of F Street, to allow the development to occur. He stated it was unlikely that Grant Street would ever continue due to grades and the creek along the north property line. He stated the desire of the development was to have two access points. He stated as indicated by staff the development would be difficult if there was only one access point from University Avenue. 7 • FILE NO.: Z-7563 Cont. Commissioner Adcock questioned if the two access points were critical to the development. Mr. Hart stated the two access points would better serve the development. Commissioner Adcock questioned if there was a median cut on "F" Street at University Avenue. Mr. Hart stated there was not. Mr. Weedman stated he was unaware the proposed developers were proposing to construct the undeveloped proportion of Grant Street at this time. He stated the developers indicated to him that the road would be constructed in the future. Commissioner Rector questioned if he was opposed -to the office development. Mr. Weedman stated he was not happy with the development but he was not opposed to the office development. Mr. Peyton Rice addressed the Commission. He stated the owned property to the northeast of the proposed development. He stated his request was to landscape the proposed wall structure to enhance the appearance. He stated currently he had two apartment buildings on his property and he was considering development of two additional buildings. He stated he had received a landscape plan only today and was requesting a deferral of the item until the landscape plan could be assessed to ensure it was sufficient to screen the proposed wall. Commissioner Lowry indicated the proposed development would be required to comply with the landscape ordinance and buffer requirements: There was a general discussion concerning the proposed site and the illegal fill that had taken place in previous years. Commissioner Langlais questioned staff comments concerning the proposed map revision. Staff stated the applicant had indicated there would not be a map revision and all the fill material located in the floodway would be removed. Chairman Rahman stated there were only eight Commissioners present. He stated previous Commission policy was to offer the applicant a deferral if there were eight or fewer Commissioners present. Mr. Hart indicated he wished to continue. Mr. Weedman indicated his desire was for a two-week deferral. A motion was made to defer both item to the April 8, 2004 Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 2.noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 8, 2004) Mr. Todd Hart was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented a brief overview indicating the item was deferred from the March 25, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff stated there had not been changes or modifications since the previous meeting. 0 FILE NO.: Z-7563 (Cont. Mr. Hart stated the development had relocated the dumpster away from the residential property to the south and would limit the service of the dumpsters to normal office hours. He stated the development would also require service vehicles to access the site from South University Avenue. Mr. Hal Kemp addressed the Commission in opposition to the street closure request within the development. He stated the developer was requesting the abandonment of undeveloped Grant Street and undeveloped "G" Street within the development and his client was opposed to the closure. Mr. Kemp stated consistency of treatment was an issue for his client (Item #2 — File No. G-23-334). Mr. Haywood Weedman addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed street closure. Me. Weedman requested the Commission deny the applicant's request for the closure of undeveloped Grant Street and undeveloped "G" Street. Mr. Hart addressed the Commission indicating access was a concern. He stated without the access from the south via Grant Street the development would be difficult to market. He stated the desire was to allow Hillcrest traffic the ability to access the site without entering North University Avenue. There was a general discussion concerning the abandonment of the proposed right-of- way and if the development could be constructed without any abandonment's. Mr. Hart stated the development would be difficult to construct without the closure of the undeveloped streets. A motion was made to approve the abandonment of the proposed streets within the development. The motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 7 noes and 0 absent. Commissioner Rector stated he felt it was the desire of the Commission to be supportive of the proposed development and the redevelopment of Mid -Town. He stated absent the equality and the issues brought up by Mr. Kemp and Mr. Weedman to limit access to house the Commission would support the Rock House Development. He stated he would form this statement in a motion. There was not a second. Mr. Hart stated his desire was to more forward with a development. He requested the Commission allow him to amend his request. A motion was made to expunge the previous vote. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. Mr. Hart amended his request to include no access from the south maintaining only access from South University Avenue. The applicant stated the POD included the abandonment of Grant Street and "G" Street and his amendment included limiting the hours of dumpster service to normal business hours. FILE Na.: Z-7563 Cont. A motion was made to approve the request as filed and to place a condition on the approval that the abandonment of the south Y2 of Grant Street be included when the item was forwarded to the Board of Directors. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 10