Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0939-A Staff Analysis1 FILE NO.: 5-939-A NAME: Seven Acres Business Park - Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Cantrell Road 200 feet east of Bella Rosa Drive DEVELOPER• WILLIAM V. MATHIS #4 Valley Club Circle Little Rock, AR 72212 227-5490 AREA: 7.1 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: ZONING: R-2/POD PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: ENGINEER• WHITE-DATERS AND ASSOCIATES 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 4 FT. NEW STREET: 540 feet Office Warehouse Complex with Mixed Retail This applicant proposes the establishment of a preliminary plat for a planned office district. The plat consists of four lots with one tract. The tract area being Taylor Loop Creek to be dedicated to the City of Little Rock as open space. The plat proposes the construction of a north -south access street to serve the four lots. The street is to be developed to a 60 foot right-of-way with 36 foot street standard. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This development site is generally low in elevation, lying along a principal drainageway. Much of the land area is undisturbed and covered by brush. Existing structures consist of a vacant shed. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply. Construct sidewalks on both sides of the proposed new street, and on Highway 10. Provide a decel lane on Highway 10. A water main extension will be required to serve the site with a front footage charge applicable. Fire services or fire hydrants will be required to be served off larger than a 4 inch main. A sewer main outfall is located on the south end of the property, contact should be made with the Waste Water Utility for access details. An extension will be required with easements to serve all lots. 1 FILE NO.: S-939-A Continued D. ISSUESLLEGALfTECHNICALjDESIGN: The preliminary plat should be completed in conformance with the submittal details. The following nine should be given particular attention. 1. The owner's certificate with source of title should be completed. 2. Drainage information through and onto the site should be provided. 3. PAGIS Monumentation information should be provided. 4. Adjacent property owners on unplatted properties should be shown. 5. The Highway 10 Right -of -Way dimensions should be shown. 6. Add a lot number or tract number to the creek parcel. 7. Show sewer service and water system on -site for fire hydrant. 8. Tract A as now illustrated on the plat should be eliminated from the drawing. 9. Provide right-of-way turnaround device for a potential cul-de-sac or hammerhead at the south end of the new street in case the lot plan and building are modified. E. ANALYSIS• The staff's review of this preliminary plat indicates few design issues. The points made above are the primary concerns with staff and the Engineering Department. There are other issues to be fully developed in the planned unit development element of this proposal, which is Item No. 4 in this agenda. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat as a necessary action to the approval of the planned unit development and subject to the resolution of the several items in our review. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 15, 1992) The application was represented by Mr. Joe White and Mr. Mathis, the property owner. Mr. White and Mr. Mathis introduced this item and the PUD, which is Item No. 4 on this agenda, as a single discussion matter. The Committee's discussion centered upon the 2 FILE NO.: 5-939-A removal of the southern most portion of the property since this site has been sold and has been provided with other access. The owner was instructed that the dedication of the floodway will be required as a plat policy requirement. There was only one item discussed which will require a redesign for the plat. It was the provision of a wider right-of-way at the terminus of the new street in order to provide for the eventual cul-de-sac or hammerhead turnaround should the future users of the lot modify the development and require more right-of-way. Because this preliminary plat is rather clean issue, the Committee forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 3, 1992) The Chairman asked the staff to present its recommendation on this issue. Richard Wood of the staff advised the Commission that because Item Nos. 4 and 1 deal with the same property in a PUD application, they should be dealt with as a single hearing item. Wood continued by pointing out there is one letter of objection in the case file from the property owner to the west along Bella Rosa Drive. He also indicated that a revised plan has been submitted making the detailed changes which have been discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Wood pointed out that up to a point immediately before the meeting today, there had been no change proposed by the applicant in the use proposal. This was the significant objection by staff, however, Mr. Joe White, representing Mr. Mathis, is apparently present today to offer a modification relative to the accessory commercial. Wood pointed out that the staff recommendation is approval of the project only on a basis of limitation of 10% accessory commercial, a maximum based upon the gross building floor area on all of the lots in the plat. Commissioner Putnam then raised a question as to whether or not this property is within a commercial node and the Highway 10 plan. Jim Lawson responded by stating "no, it was not" - "that this was located in a transition zone which provides for office and multifamily upon filing the PUD application." Chairman McDaniel then asked Mr. White to come forward and make his presentation. Mr. White reported that until as recently as yesterday that he had not understood the staff was totally opposed to the project based upon this commercial issue. Mr. White stated that in conversations with Mr. Mathis, the owner, on yesterday and today that Mr. Mathis wanted to reposition his application. Mr. Mathis has offered that the commercial use on these several lots would be limited to 10% of the gross building area and limited to the one building. This building would be placed upon Lot 1. Mr. White stated the building on that lot could be noted and they would make a commitment to limit the commercial occupancy to 4,000 square feet within that building. The remainder of the structure to be occupied by office uses. 3 39-A (Continued Jim Lawson then requested Mr. White address the issue of whether or not they proposed to keep the building on Lot 1 at the current dimension, but simply reduce the maximum amount of commercial in that building to 4,000 square feet. Mr. White responded by stating their proposal was to retain the building size and simply commit that they would not have more than 4,000 square feet of accessory commercial. Mr. Lawson then stated he understood now that there would not be other "across the counter sales" in the other buildings on the other lots. Mr. White pointed out that some of the uses in those buildings will be office showroom warehouse which would in fact sell items, but not as the principal use. A brief discussion followed in which it was determined by staff and Mr. White that the uses identified as office showroom/warehouse would in fact include activities which may sell items. However, this would not be their principal occupancy. As an understanding was reached on the accessory relationship of the remaining office warehouse uses. The Chairman then requested whether those objectors present wished to address the Commission. Mr. Ronald J. Strobel was present and came forward to make a statement about his concerns on the proposal. Mr. Strobel indicated the location of his property was Bella Rosa Drive frontage with his lot rearing upon the southern most portion of this ownership, which he understands has now been sold to another person. A large drainageway lies between his property and the rear of the building. The question which he proposed of most concern was the future use of the adjacent vacant properties around his area. If this is allowed to go to a commercial activity, it would affect his land. He indicated he was a resident of the area for 24 years. A commissioner asked for a specific location of Mr. Strobel's residence and it was pointed to on a map. Commissioner VonTungeln then requested of staff, information as to how this area of Highway 10 was developed on the plan and how it reached the current land use relationships that exist. Jim Lawson reported that the adopted plan on this area specified transition zone for properties along Highway 10. He continued by saying that the transition zone provided for maintenance of the existing residential relationships along with the possibility through a process such as the one utilized in this case for office activities. Lawson pointed out that the 0-2 office district allowed accessory commercial activity with a limit of 10% of the gross floor area. Staff felt like that 10% was appropriate in this instance; however, when the applicant, Mr. Mathis, presented his application, the percentage exceeded 26%. Additionally, the entirety of the accessory commercial proposed by Mr. Mathis does not share a true accessory relationship. In fact, it is located on a separate lot in one building with all the commercial in one place. Commissioner Oleson then asked if this property had a previous history or whether it had been before the Commission in the last year or so. Staff responded by saying yes and it had been filed 4 FILE NO.: 5-939-A (Continued much in the same form as presented in this application. However, the applicant did not pursue the development beyond the Planning Commission level. Chairman McDaniel then pointed out the best he could recall from the previous plan that a plan offered in this instance was a less intense development. Jim Lawson of staff supported this information by stating staff views this as less intense development. A general discussion then followed involving comments concerning the floodway and the location of the objector's residence. Mr. Ralph Bozeman, the architect for the project, then offered his comments on this proposal. Mr. Bozeman pointed out that the previous application, about a year ago, consisted of some 18 acres at which time they proposed no dedication to the City of open space and floodlands. The rear portion of the property which his now been sold was simply set aside for future use. He stated, "the property south of the creek has now been sold with access provided to Gooch Lane and would be utilized for residential purposes." He further expanded his comments by saying approximately 3 acres of the total project will now be dedicated to the City for purposes of protecting the floodway along the south boundary of the property to be developed as office warehouse. Mr. Bozeman expressed the thought that he felt this large open space buffer in the floodway was a good protective area between the residential to the south and west and his client's property. Mr. Bozeman pointed out that the applicant did not pursue his case beyond the Planning Commission level last time although he had a recommendation of approval. The indications they were receiving was that the City Board would not approve it. As to the potential, Commissioner Putnam then asked staff to describe adjacent land uses on the east and west to better familiarize him with the property. Staff reported that the Good Earth Nursery lies immediately to the east and fronting Highway 10, and there is a row of residential lots on the west and fronting on Bella Rosa Drive. Commissioner VonTungeln then recognized Bob Brown of the staff for purposes of clarifying the ordinance requirements on landscaping. Mr. Brown outlined the buffer and landscape requirements set by ordinance. The ordinance standards based in the Highway 10 Overlay District apply. He reported that there would be a fence along the west property line, behind the residential lots. Jim Lawson expanded on Mr. Brown's comments by pointing out the relationship of the parking and buildings on the south line of this property which normally would be a rear buffer and landscape area, with the relationship of the large dedicated 3 acre floodway. Staff is supporting a variance to allow the intrusion. The Chairman then stated he felt that all of the issues had been thoroughly developed. He asked for a motion on the issue. The Commission then voted on a motion to approve the application with the modifications included in the staff recommendation and the presentation made here today. The application was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. 5 November 3, 1992 _TEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: 5-939-A NAME: Seven Acres Business Park - Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Cantrell Road 200 feet east of Bella Rosa Drive DEVELOPER: WILLIAM V. MATHIS #4 Valley Club Circle Little Rock, AR 72212 227-5490 AREA: 7.1 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: ZONING: R-2/POD PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. PROPOSAL RE [TEST: ENGINEER: WHITE-DATERS AND ASSOCIATES 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 4 FT. NEW STREET: 540 feet Office Warehouse Complex with Mixed Retail This applicant proposes the establishment of a preliminary plat for a planned office district. The plat consists of four lots with one tract. The tract area being Taylor Loop Creek to be dedicated to the City of Little Rock as open space. The plat proposes the construction of a north -south access street to serve the four lots. The street is to be developed to a 60 foot right-of-way with 36 foot street standard. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This development site is generally low in elevation, lying along a principal drainageway. Much of the land area is undisturbed and covered by brush. Existing structures consist of a vacant shed. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply. Construct sidewalks on both sides of the proposed new street, and on Highway 10. Provide a decel lane on Highway 10. A water main extension will be required to serve the site with a front footage charge applicable. Fire services or fire hydrants will be required to be served off larger than a 4 inch main. 1 November 3, 1992 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 Continued FILE NO.: S-939-A A sewer main outfall is located on the south end of the property, contact should be made with the Waste Water Utility for access details. An extension will be required with easements to serve all lots. D. ISSUESILEGALITECHNICALIDESIGN: The preliminary plat should be completed in conformance with the submittal details. The following nine should be given particular attention. 1. The owner's certificate with source of title should be completed. 2. Drainage information through and onto the site should be provided. 3. PAGIS Monumentation information should be provided. 4. Adjacent property owners on unplatted properties should be shown. 5. The Highway 10 Right -of -Way dimensions should be shown. 6. Add a lot number or tract number to the creek parcel. 7. Show sewer service and water system on -site for fire hydrant. 8. Tract A as now illustrated on the plat should be eliminated from the drawing. 9. Provide right-of-way turnaround device for a potential cul-de-sac or hammerhead at the south end of the new street in case the lot plan and building are modified. E. ANALYSIS• The staff's review of this preliminary plat indicates few design issues. The points made above are the primary concerns with staff and the Engineering Department. There are other issues to be fully developed in the planned unit development element of this proposal, which is Item No. 4 in this agenda. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat as a necessary action to the approval of the planned unit development and subject to the resolution of the several items in our review. 2 November 3, 1992 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 Continued FILE NO.: S-939-A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 15, 1992) The application was represented by Mr. Joe White and Mr. Mathis, the property owner. Mr. White and Mr. Mathis introduced this item and the PUD, which is Item No. 4 on this agenda, as a single discussion matter. The Committee's discussion centered upon the removal of the southern most portion of the property since this site has been sold and has been provided with other access. The owner was instructed that the dedication of the floodwav will be required as a plat policy requirement. There was only one item discussed which will require a redesign for the plat. It was the provision of a wider right-of-way at the terminus of the new street in order to provide for the eventual cul-de-sac or hammerhead turnaround should the future users of the lot modify the development and require more right-of-way. Because this preliminary plat is rather clean issue, the Committee forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 3, 1992) The Chairman asked the staff to present its recommendation on this issue. Richard Wood of the staff advised the Commission that because Item Nos. 4 and 1 deal with the same property in a PUD application, they should be dealt with as a single hearing item. Wood continued by pointing out there is one letter of objection in the case file from the property owner to the west along Bella Rosa Drive. He also indicated that a revised plan has been submitted making the detailed changes which have been discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Wood pointed out that up to a point immediately before the meeting today, there had been no change proposed by the applicant in the use proposal. This was the significant objection by staff, however, Mr. Joe White, representing Mr. Mathis, is apparently present today to offer a modification relative to the accessory commercial. Wood pointed out that the staff recommendation is approval of the project only on a basis of limitation of 10% accessory commercial, a maximum based upon the gross building floor area on all of the lots in the plat. Commissioner Putnam then raised a question as to whether or not this property is within a commercial node and the Highway 10 plan. Jim Lawson responded by stating "no, it was not" - "that this was located in a transition zone which provides for office and multifamily upon filing the PUD application." Chairman McDaniel then asked Mr. White to come forward and make his presentation. Mr. White reported that until as recently as yesterday that he had not understood the staff was totally opposed 3 November 3, 1992 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-939-A to the project based upon this commercial issue. Mr. White stated that in conversations with Mr. Mathis, the owner, on yesterday and today that Mr. Mathis wanted to reposition his application. Mr. Mathis has offered that the commercial use on these several lots would be limited to 10% of the gross building area and limited to the one building. This building would be placed upon Lot 1. Mr. White stated the building on that lot could be noted and they would make a commitment to limit the commercial occupancy to 4,000 square feet within that building. The remainder of the structure to be occupied by office uses. Jim Lawson then requested Mr. White address the issue of whether or not they proposed to keep the building on Lot 1 at the current dimension, but simply reduce the maximum amount of commercial in that building to 4,000 square feet. Mr. White responded by stating their proposal was to retain the building size and simply commit that they would not have more than 4,000 square feet of accessory commercial. Mr. Lawson then stated he understood now that there would not be other "across the counter sales" in the other buildings on the other lots. Mr. White pointed out that some of the uses in those buildings will be office showroom warehouse which would in fact sell items, but not as the principal use. A brief discussion followed in which it was determined by staff and Mr. White that the uses identified as office showroom/warehouse would in fact include activities which may sell items. However, this would not be their principal occupancy. As an understanding was reached on the accessory relationship of the remaining office warehouse uses. The Chairman then requested whether those objectors present wished to address the Commission. Mr. Ronald J. Strobel was present and came forward to make a statement about his concerns on the proposal. Mr. Strobel indicated the location of his property was Bella Rosa Drive frontage with his lot rearing upon the southern most portion of this ownership, which he understands has now been sold to another person. A large drainageway lies between his property and the rear of the building. The question which he proposed of most concern was the future use of the adjacent vacant properties around his area. If this is allowed to go to a commercial activity, it would affect his land. He indicated he was a resident of the area for 24 years. A commissioner asked for a specific location of Mr. Strobel's residence and it was pointed to on a map. Commissioner VonTungeln then requested of staff, information as to how this area of Highway 10 was developed on the plan and how it reached the current land use relationships that exist. Jim Lawson reported that the adopted plan on this area specified transition zone for properties along Highway 10. He continued by saying that the transition zone provided for maintenance of the existing residential relationships 4 November 3, 1992 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 Continued FILE NO.: S-939-A along with the possibility through a process such as the one utilized in this case for office activities. Lawson pointed out that the 0-2 office district allowed accessory commercial activity with a limit of 10% of the gross floor area. Staff felt like that 10% was appropriate in this instance; however, when the applicant, Mr. Mathis, presented his application, the percentage exceeded 26%. Additionally, the entirety of the accessory commercial proposed by Mr. Mathis does not share a true accessory relationship. In fact, it is located on a separate lot in one building with all the commercial in one place. Commissioner Oleson then asked if this property had a previous history or whether it had been before the Commission in the last year or so. Staff responded by saying yes and it had been filed much in the same form as presented in this application. However, the applicant did not pursue the development beyond the Planning Commission level. Chairman McDaniel then pointed out the best he could recall from the previous plan that a plan offered in this instance was a less intense development. Jim Lawson of staff supported this information by stating staff views this as less intense development. A general discussion then followed involving comments concerning the floodway and the location of the objector's residence. Mr. Ralph Bozeman, the architect for the project, then offered his comments on this proposal. Mr. Bozeman pointed out that the previous application, about a year ago, consisted of some 18 acres at which time they proposed no dedication to the City of open space and floodlands. The rear portion of the property which his now been sold was simply set aside for future use. He stated, "the property south of the creek has now been sold with access provided to Gooch Lane and would be utilized for residential purposes." He further expanded his comments by saying approximately 3 acres of the total project will now be dedicated to the City for purposes of protecting the floodway along the south boundary of the property to be developed as office warehouse. Mr. Bozeman expressed the thought that he felt this large open space buffer in the floodway was a good protective area between the residential to the south and west and his client's property. Mr. Bozeman pointed out that the applicant did not pursue his case beyond the Planning Commission level last time although he had a recommendation of approval. The indications they were receiving was that the City Board would not approve it. As to the potential, Commissioner describe adjacent land uses on the familiarize him with the property. Earth Nursery lies immediately to and there is a row of residential Putnam then asked staff to east and west to better Staff reported that the Good the east and fronting Highway 10, lots on the west and fronting on 5 November 3, 1992 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 Continued FILE NC.: 5-939-� Bella Rosa Drive. Commissioner VonTungeln then recognized Bob Brown of the staff for purposes of clarifying the ordinance requirements on landscaping. Mr. Brown outlined the buffer and landscape requirements set by ordinance. The ordinance standards based in the Highway 10 Overlay District apply. He reported that there would be a fence along the west property line, behind the residential lots. Jim Lawson expanded on Mr. Brown's comments by pointing out the relationship of the parking and buildings on the south line of this property which normally would be a rear buffer and landscape area, with the relationship of the large dedicated 3 acre floodway. Staff is supporting a variance to allow the intrusion. The Chairman then stated he felt that all of the issues had been thoroughly developed. He asked for a motion on the issue. The Commission then voted on a motion to approve the application with the modifications included in the staff recommendation and the presentation made here today. The application was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. N. • • i SECTION 2. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as recommended by the Little Rock Planning Commission with the following conditions: 1. That accessory commercial be limited to ten (10) percent of the gross floor area of all four (4) lots within the plat. 2. That the accessory commercial uses be limited to the building on Lot No. 1. 3. That the balance of Lot No. 1 be restricted to office use. 4. That the building on Lots 2, 3 and 4 be limited to office showroom warehouse as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 3. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for Seven Acres Business Park (Short -form POD) is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval within the time specified by Chapter 36, Article VII, Section 36-454(d) of the Code of Ordinances. SECTION 4. That the map referred in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and it is hereby amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change provided for in Section 1 hereof. SECTION 5. That this ORDINANCE shall take effect and be in full force upon final approval of the plan. PASSED: December 15, 1992 ATTEST: APPRW'ED: Xa- City41e�rkR­Abbi�eHa�ncoc�k Mayor Sharon Priest