Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1174-C Staff AnalysisFebruary 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: S--1176 NAME: Gill - Subdivision Site Plan LOCATION: 301 Gill Street DEVELOPER• William Ketcher 301 Gill Street Little Rock, AR AREA: 4.38 Acres ZONING• I-3 ENGINEER• Pat McGetrick McGetrick Engineering 72203 11225 Huron Lane Little Rock, AR 72211 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ALLOWED USES• PROPOSED USE• VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Heavy Industrial Mini -warehouses Variance for reduced side yard setbacks along north and south property lines. BACKGROUND• The property at 301 Gill Street is zoned I-3 Heavy Industrial District. A site plan review is required for this site due to the fact that the applicant is requesting a multiple building development. A. PROPOSAL• The applicant is proposing the phased construction of seven (7) one-story miniwarehouse buildings. Phase I will include construction of buildings 2, 3 and 4. Phase II will include buildings 1, 5, 6, and 7. Building 1 will consist of 9,000 square feet of conditioned (climate -controlled) space. Building 2 will include a 1,200 square foot office/manager living quarters. The entire site will be fenced during Phase I construction. The buildings, exterior will be metal construction. February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cant.) FILE NO.: 5-1176 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently fenced and vacant. Any trees that may have existed on the site have been removed. The property immediately north is occupied by a roofing company and is zoned I-3. The property immediately south is zoned PCD for a future miniwarehouse development. The area to the east is vacant and zoned I-3. There are single- family and multifamily residential uses to the west across Gill Street. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Staff has received no public comments as of this writing. The Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Association was notified of the public hearing. D_ ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Dedication of right-of-way to a total of 60 feet wide is required for Gill Street. 2. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct 36 feet wide street improvements to these streets including 5 foot sidewalks, or provide in -lieu contribution. 3. Stormwater detention per ordinance applies to this property. 4. Building cannot be constructed over a utility easement unless approved by Little Rock Wastewater Utility. 5. Obtain barricade and street cut permit prior to any construction work within right-of-way. 6. Provide striping and signage plans for the development, for Traffic Engineering approval. 7. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main relocation required prior to start of construction of project. AP&L: Relocate 10 foot AP&L easement. Arkla: No comments received. Southwestern Bell: No Comments. Water: On site fire protection required. feeder lines may be required to provide protection to this project. Fire Department: Show fire hydrants. Reinforcement of adequate fire 2 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO • 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1176 County Plannin : No Comment - inside city limits. CATA: No comments received. F. ISSUES TECHNSCALZDESIGN: planning Division: No Comments. Landsca a Issues: Area set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. The dumpster should be oriented away from the street. This current dumpster location would appear to be a good area for building landscaping. G. ANALYSIS• The applicant is requesting a variance for reduced side yard setbacks along the north and south property lines. The required setback is 30 feet minimum on each side. The applicant is proposing a 15 foot setback along the north property line and a 16.7 foot setback along the south property line. Given the adjacent zoning and uses, the reduced side yard setbacks should have no adverse effects. The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on January 22, 1998. The revised plan addresses the outstanding issues discussed by the Subdivision Committee. Any site lighting must be directed away from the residential property to the west. No signage is shown on the site plan. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the conditions noted in paragraphs D, E and F. 2. Staff recommends approval of the variance for reduced side yard setbacks. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the site plan. Mr. McGetrick stated that a variance would be requested for 3 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-1176 reduced side yard setbacks. He stated that the AP&L and Wastewater easements would be relocated. Mr. McGetrick indicated that a revised site plan would be submitted and address all staff concerns. The Committee forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 5, 1998) Pat McGetrick and William Ketcher were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff gave a brief description of the proposed site plan. William Ketcher addressed the Commission in support of the application. He stated that he would respond to concerns. Commissioner Hawn stated that concerns of the neighborhood related to hours of operation and site lighting. Pat McGetrick, project engineer, stated that the hours of operation would be normal daytime hours, but there would be 24-hour access to the property and 24-hour security. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated that he did not think that the hours of operation could be limited on a site plan review. Commissioner Berry stated that he had concerns relating to the exterior design of the buildings. He stated that the location being near the state capitol that a more compatible building design, such as a masonry exterior, would be appropriate. He stated that other cities require higher design standards for mini -warehouse buildings. There was a lengthy discussion relating to the surrounding zoning and land uses. Mr. Lawson stated that the proposed mini - warehouse project should have no adverse effects on the area. A motion was made to approve the site plan. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 5 nays, and 1 absent. There was a brief discussion relating to the hours of operation. There was additional discussion concerning the appeal process. Commissioner Berry stated that he thought the item needed to go back to staff to look at exterior design and landscaping. Chairman Lichty stated that he thought the intent of the industrial zoning was being exceeded when discussing exterior design. 4 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1176 Commissioner Berry stated that the discussion of design criteria was appropriate, based on the fact that the application was for site plan review. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, stated that the Commission would need to vote to expunge the previous vote in order to send the item back for further staff review. There was additional discussion relating to the appeal process and a possible lawsuit. A motion was made to expunge the previous vote. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. There was additional discussion relating to the site plan review process and the surrounding zoning and uses. There was also additional discussion about the appropriateness of imposing exterior design criteria. A motion was made to defer the item to allow the applicant time to meet with staff and the neighborhood. The motion failed. Another motion was made to approve the application as filed. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 3 nays, 1 absent and 2 abstentions (Adcock, Muse). STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has requested that the item be brought back to the Commission for reconsideration. The applicant has a revised plan which addresses concerns raised by the Commission on February 5, 1998. Article V.E.7b. of the Planning Commission Bylaws states the following: Reconsideration "Except for cause and with the unanimous consent of all members present at a meeting, no matter on which final action has previously been taken shall be reopened for further consideration or action. If consideration is granted by the Commission, the case will be rescheduled for the next regular meeting, a new application will be made (new fees, legal ad, and adjacent property owners renotified so that they may have an opportunity to hear any new evidence and to be heard.)- 5 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1176 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 1998) Stephen Giles, City Attorney's Office, informed the Commission that the item was back on the agenda due to the fact that all the issues were not adequately discussed at the last meeting and that he felt that the last hearing was not full and fair. He stated that it is a procedural matter and the item could be reheard with a majority vote of the Commission. A motion was made to reconsider the item. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. Pat McGetrick, project engineer, stated that the hours of operation would be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. He stated that the roofs of the structures would be of colored metal. He stated that the ends of the buildings would be split -face block. He also stated that a wood fence would be constructed across the front (Gill Street) property line. Commissioner Berry asked if the metal roofs would be non - reflective. Mr. McGetrick stated that they would be non -reflective. A motion was made to approve the application as presented. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes and 1 nay. The application was approved. 6