Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0888 Staff AnalysisR-r MORP, 1 S O N January 3, 1989 Item No. C NAME: Hinson Corner "Short -form" PCD (Z-5105) LOCATION: Southeast corner of Hinson and Hinson Loop Roads DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Flake and Company Summerlin Associates, Inc. P. O. Box 990 1609 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 376-8005 Phone: 376-1323 AREA: 2.69 acres NO. OF LOTS 2 FT. OF NEW ST. 0 ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: Office/Limited retail A. Proposal/.Request 1. For PCD approval of a 2.69 acre site for use as an office and retail development. 2_ That the two tracts involved in the development be kept separate and be coordinated through cross - easements and points of ingress and egress. This is to: (a) permit the future sale of either tract allowing for economic flexibility; (b) to maintain the office environment on Hinson Road, while upgrading development along Hinson Loop Road, utilizing a mixture of office -retail uses; and (c) allowing for a two-phase development of the site. 3. Phasing: (a.) Plans for Phase I include a combination office/retail center emphasizing a strong French traditional architectural design. The "L" shaped structure will consist of 21,400 square feet with bays varying in size from 1,000 to 1,900 square feet. Construction materials will consist of metal stud framing, stucco -drywall with sloped standing seamed metal roofs, French style entry doors and windows. January 3, 1989 I t.em_ No. C (Cant i nued)__ _ There will be special emphasis pla-ced on the pedestrian areas, walkways, entrances and landscaping of a very high quality and design (colored canvas awnings, textured and patterned walks, traditional lantern style pole lighting, dense groundcover and landscaping). (b.) Phase II will encompass the smaller Hinson Road tract as a single office building development. Architectural design would be coordinated and compliment the Phase I design. 4. Land Use Uses have been extracted from a combination of office classifications (0-1 through 0-3) and commercial classification (C-1 through C-3). The applicant is requesting 60 percent retail to 40 percent office usage. 5. Deve_I opm_en_t_a I Time-f rame The project will be constructed within the time - frame designated in the Ordinance. B. Develonment_Statistics 1. Site: Phase f.......... ._84,876 square feet/1.95 acres Phase ...............32,292 square feet/0.74 acres Total ........ 117,128 square feet/2.69 acres 2. Building area: Phase I ............ 21,400 square feet Phase 11 ... _ _ . _ _ _ _ .__..7, 1..50 square feet Total ......... 28,550 square feet January 3, 1989 Item No. C (Continued). 3. Parking: Phase I................86 cars (4 handicapped) (1 per 248 sq. ft.) Phase II .............. 44 cars (2 handicapped) (1 per 163 sq. ft.) Total ............ 130 cars (6 handicapped) (1 per 220 sq. ft.) 4. Bui__I.d.i,ng Coverage: Phase I................25 percent Phase II... ........22 percent Total... ........24 percent 5. Open Space : Phase I ....... .........0.45 acres .... 23 percent Phase II ................ 0.14 acres... .19 percent Total..............0.59 acres .... 22 percent 6. Usage: 60 percent retail ..... 17,130 square feet 40 percent office......11,.420....square feet ......... C. En Comments The right-of-way and improvements on Hinson Loop Road should be to Master Street Plan collector standards. See also additional comments on this tract issued to Richard Wood on August 26, 1988. Jerry Gardner of the Public Works Department offered an amendment, the amendment to state that if this development receives final plat and/or plan approval for building permit prior to the issuance of contracts for the boundary street improvements as public projects, then a in -lieu contribution will be necessary. January 3, 1989 Item No. C Continued D. .Issues/Legal/Technical/Des-ign 1. Proposed land use and percentage of retail development. 2. Additional buffering to shield residences to the north. 3- Discussion of Engineering Comments and amount of curb cuts on Hinson Road. E. Ana I y-s i-s This submission includes a request for a commercial office development with a mix of 60 percent retail and 40 percent office. It is on property that was previously considered for a commercial shopping center. Staff has been against commercial development on this property in the past; it is now opposed to the percentage of the proposed amount to be developed as commercial use. Staff recommends that only 35 percent be developed as retail. Even though the plan itself is very well designed, the amount of commercial use creates a precedent for extensive commercial development west of Rodney Parham and is contrary to the approved Land Use Plan. This could only serve to adversely affect the neighboring residential area to the north. Past actions by the City Board of Directors have discouraged commercial uses west of Green Mountain Drive. Staff recommends a 25 foot front buffer on both streets. A cross-section of the smaller building is requested. The applicant has submitted a letter stating adherence to all of Engineering's comments except one. This concerns the applicant's feeling that the three curb cuts along Hinson Loop are not excessive considering the following: 1. Excessive frontage on Hinson Loop Road (427 feet); 2. The developers agreement to improve and widen Hinson Loop Road as discussed; 3. Changing the service entrance from a two-way to a one-way access; 4. Two shared access points for Phase I and II; and 5. Orderly flow of traffic within the development which allows for smoother access to and from Hinson and Hinson Loop Roads. January 3, 1989 Item No. C (Continued} ... ...... ......_._.... F. Staff Recommendation Denial as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Staff explained that the Land Use Plan designated office use for this site. Objections were also stated to the proposed amount of retail to be built since Staff was concerned about retail west of Rodney Parham due to adverse impacts on traffic and fear of setting a precedence in the area. The guideline usually employed is ten percent (10%) commercial in some office zones and Staff does not desire to go beyond that figure. There was some discussion of the 40 foot buffer required along Hinson Road and the need to eliminate one of the curb cuts due to the Ordinance requirement of one per every 300 feet. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) A motion for deferral, as requested by the Applicant, was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (December 22, 1988) The applicant was not present. There were no new issues offered. Mr. Gardner of the Public Works Department offered comments to the effect that the neighbors on the north side of Hinson Road had concerns about the alignment of the driveway onto Hinson and an existing street. A brief discussion was held between Staff members and the Committee concerning the design of the stacking spaces for the drive - through lanes of the financial institution. The revised plan as refiled indicated a single driveway onto Hinson Loop Road to serve the immediate area of the drive -through facility. This appeared to offer some conflict with the ability of cars maneuvering through that area. Jerry Gardner of the Public Works Department offered comments to the effect that the applicant had been offered resolution of the design conflicts but that the City did not have a specific demand that they change the design. There being no further conversation on the subject, the matter is forwarded on to the full Commission.