Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1028 Staff AnalysisJune 28, 1994 ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: 5-1028 NAME: HINSON OFFICE PARK -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Hinson Road and Hinson Loop Road DEVELOPER: JOHN REES REES DEVELOPMENT 12115 Hinson Rd. Little Rock, AR 223-228 AREA: 8.54 ACRES ENGINEER• PAT MCGETRICK MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11225 Huron Lane, Suite 200 72212 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 410 ZONING: 0-3 PROPOSED USES: Offices and a mini -storage facility (A separate request for a PCD for the mini -storage facility is to be heard on this agenda.) PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver from the requirement to provide a sidewalk on both sides of a commercial street for Rees Lane, and provide a sidewalk on one side only. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat on a 8.54 acre tract in order to develop an office and commercial subdivision to contain 5 lots. Lots range in size from around 1 acre to the 3.37 acre lot at the rear of the subdivision A street to meet the minimum standards for a commercial street is proposed, except the applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to construct a sidewalk along both sides of the commercial street and provide a sidewalk along one side only. Lots 1, 2, and 3 will have frontage on both Hinson Road and Hinson Loop; Rees Lane, the street to be constructed, will provide secondary access to these three lots, as well as provide access to Lots 4 and 5. A. PROPOSAW REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat for Hinson Office Park. The proposed subdivision is to contain 5 lots, and access to the subdivision is to be provided both off Hinson Road and by way of a new cul-de-sac street which is proposed to be constructed. Approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a waiver from the requirement that standard June 28, 1994 r ITEM N E(Continued.) • FILE N 5-102$ commercial streets are to have a sidewalk provided on both sides of such streets, and permit Rees Lane, a 400 foot long cul-de-sac street, to have a sidewalk along one side only. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is presently undeveloped. The terrain has a fairly steady rise from east to west. The high point of the tract is at the southwest corner, which is 40 feet above the level at the Hinson Road -Hinson Loop intersection. The present zoning of the tract is 0-3. The surrounding area has a mixture of zoning districts. To the east of the tract, on the same side of Hinson Loop as the proposed development, is a continuation of the 0-3 area, a small R-2 tract, and a PCD. Across Hinson Loop to the east is a PCD. To the south is an MF-12 area. To the west, at the southwest corner of the development, is a PRD, and directly to the west is an 0-2 area. Across Hinson Road to the north is an R-2 area. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY—COMMENTS,.- Public Works comments that Master Street Plan improvements and right-of-way dedication will be required on Hinson Loop. There will be restrictions on curb -cuts and access to and from Hinson Road. A detailed grading plan and detention will be required. The developer must obtain a wetlands delineation from the Corps of Engineers. The minimum right-of-way for a cul-de-sac is 100 feet. Little Rock Municipal Water Works reports that a pro-rata front footage charge of $15.00 per foot applies for frontage on Hinson Loop Road (329, x $15.00 = $4,935.00). A water main extension will be required, and fire hydrant locations must be approved by the Fire Department. Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main extension, with an easement, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require additional easements. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. D. Is SUESI LEGAL/ TECHNICAL/ DES IGN: The Subdivision Regulations (Section 31-282) requires that commercial streets have sidewalks constructed on both sides of the streets. Since the proposed cul-de-sac street abuts the boundary of the subdivision, and, since it is the side and rear of the lots which lie beyond the boundary of the subdivision, a waiver of this requirement is sought. 2 June 28, 1994 ITEM N E Continued FILE N S-1028 The Zoning Regulations (Section 36-281) requires a minimum lot size in the 0-3 zoning district of 14,000 square feet. The proposed lots exceed this minimum requirement. E. ANALYSIS• The proposed subdivision meets all Ordinance requirements in its design, and the plans which have been submitted are substantially complete. There are only minor deficiencies remaining to be addressed. The request for the waiver of the sidewalk on the south/east side of Rees Lane is in keeping with waivers which have been granted previously. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and recommends approval of the requested wavier for the sidewalk to be omitted on the south and east boundary of Rees Lane. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994) Mr. John Rees, the developer, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, were present. Staff indicated that the original submission involved a POD encompassing the entire site, but that subsequent discussions with the applicant had led to a decision to amend the application to request a preliminary plat for the entire site and a PCD for just the rear portion of the site shown as Lot 5. This, the applicant felt, would give him the flexibility he needed to adequately market the site for development without the restrictions imposed by a Planned Unit Development. The documents needed to complete an amendment to the application were discussed. Mr. McGetrick indicated that he would furnish the needed plans. The Committee forwarded the amended request to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 14, 1994) Staff reported that a letter had been received from the applicant asking that the hearing on the item be deferred until the June 28, 1994 Commission meeting. The item was included in the Consent Agenda for deferral, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. 3 June 28, 1994 ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: S-1028 NAME: HINSON OFFICE PARK -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Hinson Road and Hinson Loop Road DEVELOPER: JOHN REES REES DEVELOPMENT 12115 Hinson Rd. Little Rock, AR 72212 223-228 AREA: 8.54 ACRES ENGINEER: PAT MCGETRICK MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11225 Huron Lane, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 410 ZONING: 0-3 PROPOSED USES: Offices and a mini -storage facility (A separate request for a PCD for the mini -storage facility is to be heard on this agenda.) PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver from the requirement to provide a sidewalk on both sides of a commercial street for Rees Lane, and provide a sidewalk on one side only. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat on a 8.54 acre tract in order to develop an office and commercial subdivision to contain 5 lots. Lots range in size from around 1 acre to the 3.37 acre lot at the rear of the subdivision A street to meet the minimum standards for a commercial street is proposed, except the applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to construct a sidewalk along both sides of the commercial street and provide a sidewalk along one side only. Lots 1, 2, and 3 will have frontage on both Hinson Road and Hinson Loop; Rees Lane, the street to be constructed, will provide secondary access to these three lots, as well as provide access to Lots 4 and 5. A. PROPOSAL RE JEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat for Hinson Office Park. The proposed subdivision is to contain 5 lots, and access to the subdivision is to be provided both off Hinson Road and by way of a new cul-de-sac street which is proposed to be constructed. Approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a waiver from the requirement that standard June 28, 1994 ITEM NO.: E Continued FILE NO.: S-1028 commercial streets are to have a sidewalk provided on both sides of such streets, and permit Rees Lane, a 400 foot long cul-de-sac street, to have a sidewalk along one side only. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is presently undeveloped. The terrain has a fairly steady rise from east to west. The high point of the tract is at the southwest corner, which is 40 feet above the level at the Hinson Road -Hinson Loop intersection. The present zoning of the tract is 0-3. The surrounding area has a mixture of zoning districts. To the east of the tract, on the same side of Hinson Loop as the proposed development, is a continuation of the 0-3 area, a small R-2 tract, and a PCD. Across Hinson Loop to the east is a PCD. To the south is an MF-12 area. To the west, at the southwest corner of the development, is a PRD, and directly to the west is an 0-2 area. Across Hinson Road to the north is an R-2 area. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that Master Street Plan improvements and right-of-way dedication will be required on Hinson Loop. There will be restrictions on curb -cuts and access to and from Hinson Road. A detailed grading plan and detention will be required. The developer must obtain a wetlands delineation from the Corps of Engineers. The minimum right-of-way for a cul-de-sac is 100 feet. Little Rock Municipal Water Works reports that a pro-rata front footage charge of $15.00 per foot applies for frontage on Hinson Loop Road (329, x $15.00 = $4,935.00). A water main extension will be required, and fire hydrant locations must be approved by the Fire Department. Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main extension, with an easement, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require additional easements. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUESILEGALITECHNICALIDESIGN: The Subdivision Regulations (Section 31-282) requires that commercial streets have sidewalks constructed on both sides of the streets. Since the proposed cul-de-sac street abuts the boundary of the subdivision, and, since it is the side and rear of the lots which lie beyond the boundary of the subdivision, a waiver of this requirement is sought. 2 June 28, 1994 ITEM NO_: E {continued) FILE NO.: S-1028 The zoning Regulations (Section 36-281) requires a minimum lot size in the 0-3 zoning district of 14,000 square feet. The proposed lots exceed this minimum requirement. E. ANALYSIS• The proposed subdivision meets all Ordinance requirements in its design, and the plans which have been submitted are substantially complete. There are only minor deficiencies remaining to be addressed. The request for the waiver of the sidewalk on the south/east side of Rees Lane is in keeping with waivers which have been granted previously. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and recommends approval of the requested wavier for the sidewalk to be omitted on the south and east boundary of Rees Lane. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994) Mr. John Rees, the developer, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, were present. Staff indicated that the original submission involved a POD encompassing the entire site, but that subsequent discussions with the applicant had led to a decision to amend the application to request a preliminary plat for the entire site and a PCD for just the rear portion of the site shown as Lot 5. This, the applicant felt, would give him the flexibility he needed to adequately market the site for development without the restrictions imposed by a Planned Unit Development. The documents needed to complete an amendment to the application were discussed. Mr. McGetrick indicated that he would furnish the needed plans. The Committee forwarded the amended request to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DUNE 14, 1994) Staff reported that a letter had been received from the applicant asking that the hearing on the item be deferred until the June 28, 1994 Commission meeting. The item was included in the Consent Agenda for deferral, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUKE 28, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant, Mr. John Rees, had submitted a letter, dated June 28, 1994, in which a request for a 30-day 3 June 28, 1994 ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1428 deferral of the hearing of this issue was relayed. The requested deferral, staff indicated, would bring the issue back before the Planning Commission at its July 26, 1994 hearing. Staff asked that the request for deferral be placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral. Chairperson Chachere reported that there were a number of persons in attendance at the Commission meeting who had submitted registration cards and had indicated that they objected to the applicant's proposed development. Commissioner Oleson recalled that the applicant had asked for a deferral previously, and asked for an explanation of the reason for the second request for a deferral. Staff indicated that the applicant, Mr. Rees, had, at the June 14, 1994 Commission meeting, asked for a 2-week deferral, and that, during that 2-week period, had attempted to set a meeting with Mr. Jim Lawson, the then Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, to discuss staff's recommendation of denial of the application and to seek input for any suggested changes. Due to Mr. Lawson's transition to the position of Acting Assistant City Manager, Mr. Lawson had been unable to meet with Mr. Rees, and, after the announcement was made of Mr. Lawson's new position, Mr. Rees was told to discuss his application with Mr. Tim Polk, the new Acting Neighborhoods and Planning Director. This discussion was held on Monday, June 27, 1994, and a neighborhood meeting with concerned neighborhood residents had been held Monday evening. Mr. Rees, staff reported, had requested the second deferral in order for him to consider available options in response to staff and the neighborhood opposition, and to redesign the site. Mr. Rees concurred in the explanation. Chairperson Chachere, addressing those who opposed the application, asked if they were in opposition to the requested deferral. The response from the crowd was that they were, indeed, opposed to the deferral, so Ms. Chachere indicated that the item would remain on the regular agenda. Commissioner Willis asked if both items E and F needed to be deferred, since the preliminary plat issue could stand separately from the PCD issue, and indicated that he felt comfortable in going ahead and voting on the preliminary plat issue. He asked Mr. Rees if that met with his approval. Mr. Rees responded that he would amend his request to delete the request for deferral of the preliminary plat issue,_ and asked that item E, the preliminary plat issue, be heard and voted on. Chairperson Chachere, again addressing those who had registered as opponents of items E and F, asked if they opposed the preliminary plat issues, or were in opposition only to the PCD 4 June 28, 1994 ITEM ND • E [Continued] FILE NO.: 5-10.28 issue. The group responded that they were in opposition only to the PCD issue. Ms. Chachere announced, then, that both items would be on the regular agenda, that those in opposition would be permitted to present their position, but that Mr. Rees would be allowed to make whatever presentation and request he deemed appropriate at that time. Mr. Rees outlined his preliminary plat request, indicating the scope of the area encompassed by the proposed preliminary plat, and stating that the entire area is currently coned 0-3. Staff recalled that the applicant had requested one variance from the Subdivision Regulations: in lieu of construction of a sidewalk on both sides of the commercial street, as required in the Regulations, a waiver was requested to permit the construction of a sidewalk on one side only. Commissioner Oleson asked staff to outline the legal ramification of approval of the preliminary plat. Staff stated that the area of the preliminary plat encompassed the entire 8.54 acre tract, and was an independent issue from the PCD request; that the preliminary plat was the process whereby the tract would be platted into lots, and one of the lots which was to be created was being requested to be designated as the area for the PCD. Staff reported that the current zoning of the entire tract is 0-3, and that this zoning would not change; that the uses permitted in the 0-3 district could be implemented on the site once the lots were platted. Mr. Joe Grossclose, who identified himself as an owner of one of the condominiums to the south of the proposed development, stated that he objected to the proposed use, but was suspicions that - proceeding with the preliminary plat issue was a "seduction", a first step in getting the PCD approved. Commissioner Woods assured the objectors that all that was occurring was the approval of a preliminary plat, and that the discussion of the issues involving a change in use were completely separate. Chairperson Chachere then asked each of the individuals who had completed registration cards and who had noted their objection to items E and F to confirm that they had no objection to the preliminary plat issue; that their objection was to the change in use to PCD. Each of the persons, in turn, as their names were called, confirmed this clarification. A motion was made and seconded to approve the preliminary plat and to recommend approval of the requested waiver. The motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 1 abstention. 5