VARIANCES/WAIVERS
REQUESTED: Plat Variance – The creation of a lot without public street
frontage.
BACKGROUND:
A
request to rezone this site from R-2, Single-family to POD was filed and
withdrawn from consideration prior to the June 3, 2004 Planning Commission
Public Hearing.The applicant
proposed a development to include office and commercial activities on this 3.58
acre site.The previous request was
identical to the application now being considered.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The
applicant is requesting the development of this 3.6 acre parcel as a Planned
Office Development, POD to allow the development of the site with a
office/commercial facility and the creation of a two lot plat.There will be a single building on each parcel.Lot 1 will have a drive-through restaurant containing 3000 square feet.Lot 2 will contain 21, 000 square feet of office space and 8200 square
feet of commercial space.The
overall percent for each use on the site is sixty-five percent office and
thirty-five percent commercial.
The
applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for this
parcel of property.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The
site contains an occupied single-family home.To the east of the site is also an occupied single-family home with the
Wal-Greens development located further east.The area to the north is vacant and undeveloped; currently zoned R-2,
Single-family.To the west of the
site is a newly constructed branch bank adjacent to Cantrell Road and a dentist
office located in the rear of the site on a separate lot.To the south of the site are vacant properties zoned R-2, Single-family.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As
of this writing, staff has not received any comment from an area resident
concerning the proposed use of the property.All residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the
site, the Westbury Neighborhood Association, the Westchester Heatherbrae
Neighborhood Association, the Secluded Hills Neighborhood Association and all
owners of property located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the
public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC
WORKS CONDITIONS:
The
standard conditions shown on the plans as “Public Works Notes” apply
to the project.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE
DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,
with easements, if service is required for the project to serve Lot 2.Contact Little Rock Wastewater at
688-1414 for additional details.
Entergy:Approved as submitted.
Center-Point
Energy:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central
Arkansas Water:
All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for
water service must be met. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact
the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required
placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding
procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). The facilities on-site will be
private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be
installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications
and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the
State of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. A
Capital Investment Charge based on the size of connection(s) will apply to this
project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections
including metered connections off the private fire system. 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.
Fire
Department: Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional
information.
County
Planning:No comment.
CATA:No comment received.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning
Division:This
request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan
shows Suburban Office & Transition for this property. The applicant has
applied for a Planned Office Development for office and commercial development.
The
applicant has previously applied for a POD and a Land Use Plan amendment from
Transition and Suburban Office to Mixed Usethat
was withdrawn without prejudice at the June 3, 2004 Planning Commission hearing.
A
land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Use is a separate item on this
agenda (Item #10 – File No. LU04-01-07).
Master
Street Plan:Cantrell Road is shown
as a Principal Arterial on the plan.Cantrell
Road is built as a five-lane road through this area.The
primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and connect
major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas.Cantrell
Road may require dedication of right-of-way and street improvements.Since this property is located on a Principal Arterial access
to the site should be minimized and should not impede through traffic.
Existing
or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of
the development.
City
Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan:The
applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the River Mountain
Neighborhood Action Plan. The Sustainable Natural Environment goal listed an
objective of promoting the vigorous enforcement of the Landscaping &
Excavation Ordinance. This action could result in the removal of trees in order
to accommodate the development of uses possible in the Commercial land use
category.
Landscape:Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance
requirements.A six foot high
screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or
dense evergreen plantings, is required where adjacent to residentially zoned
properties to the north.
Mr.
Joe White was present representing the request.Staff stated the applicant was requesting a POD to allow the development
of an office/commercial development.Staff
stated the percentages requested were consistent with those allowed for a
Planned Office Development.Staff
stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process.
Staff
requested Mr. White provide details concerning the proposed uses of the
development.Staff also requested
the total building coverage be provided in the general notes section of the site
plan.Staff stated the proposed
building on Lot 1 was indicated at 80-feet and the typical required setback on
Highway 10 was 100-feet.
Public
Works comments were addressed.Staff
stated the conditions noted in the general notes section would apply to the
proposed development.
Landscaping
comments were addressed.Staff
noted the areas set aside for buffers appeared to meet minimum ordinance
requirements.Staff also noted
screening would be required to the north where adjacent to single-family zoned
properties.
There
was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to
the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The
applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised
at the October 28, 2004 Subdivision Committee Meeting.The applicant has indicated the dumpster location for proposed Lot 2 on
the site plan and included a note concerning screening.The applicant has indicated screening will be placed as required by the
zoning ordinance or at a minimum on three sides at least two feet above the
finished grade of the container.
The
applicant is requesting the creation of a two lot plat through the planned
development process.The requested
subdivision will require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the
creation of a lot without public street frontage.The proposed lot will be served by a sixty foot access and
utility easement through Lot 1.
The
applicant has indicated a development sign will be located near the front drive.The applicant has indicated the sign will be a ground mounted monument
style no more than ten feet in height and one hundred square feet in area.The proposed signage is consistent with signage allowed in the Highway 10
Design Overlay District.The
applicant has also indicated a tenant ground mounted sign, maximum allowed by
ordinance, near the western property line.Staff is not supportive of the requested signage.Staff feels the placement of two signs on this single development is not
consistent with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
The
applicant has indicated Lot 1 will develop with a restaurant and Lot 2 will
develop with an office/commercial development.The applicant has indicated the proposed uses for Lot 2 are those listed
in the O-3, General Office Zoning District along with the Conditional Uses and
the Accessory Uses with no limit on the percentages allowed.Typically, an O-3 development is allowed ten percent of the gross square
footage to develop with the listed accessory uses.The listed Conditional Uses requires approval from the Commission.The site plan includes the total building coverage for each lot.The total building coverage for proposed Lot 1 is 5.69 percent and for
proposed Lot 2 is 28.3 percent.
The
applicant has indicated the development of Lot 1 as a restaurant with 3,000
square feet of building space and 50 parking spaces.The total lot area contains 1.21 acres.The proposed lot area is more than adequate to meet the
minimum required lot size for a commercially zoned site but not in compliance
with minimum lot sizes typically required under the Highway 10 Design Overlay
District or 2 acre minimum lot sizes.The
proposed parking is also adequate to meet the typical minimum parking demand for
a restaurant.The typical minimum
parking required for a restaurant would be 30 parking spaces.
The
applicant has indicated an office development on Lot 2 consisting of 21,000
square feet of office space and 8,200 square feet of commercial space.The applicant has indicated 116 parking spaces to serve Lot 2.The typical minimum parking required for the site would be 93 parking
spaces based on one space per 225 square feet of gross floor area.The proposed parking is more than adequate to meet the typical minimum
demand.
The
applicant has indicated a reduced building line adjacent to Cantrell Road and a
reduced landscape buffer along Cantrell Road.The applicant has indicated an 80-foot building setback (100-foot
typically required by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District) and a 35-foot
landscape buffer (typically 40-feet by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District).Staff is not supportive of the reduced request.Other sites, which have redeveloped in the area have typically maintained
the integrity of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.Staff feels the developer is requesting to overbuild the site and the
proposed site plan does not maintain the integrity of the Highway 10 Design
Overlay District with regard to landscaping and front building line placement.
The
applicant has requested a Planned Office Development to develop the site with
the indicated uses.The percentage
of office and commercial use is consistent with percentages allowed in the
Zoning Ordinance for a Planned Office Development.Staff does not feel however, the proposed development is appropriate to
the site.With the placement of a
restaurant on the lot abutting Cantrell Road and the office building located to
the rear of the site the overall development will be commercial in character and
is not consistent with the City’s Future Land Use Plan.A Land Use Plan for this site has been filed on this agenda as a separate
item (Item # 10 – File No. LU04-01-07).Staff
feels the proposed request is inconsistent with the adopted plan and feels the
change to the plan is inappropriate.With
the development of this site as a “commercial development” staff feels this
will expand the previously identified commercial node at Taylor Loop thus
“stripping out Cantrell Road”.Since
the zoning request is inconsistent with the City’s Land Use Plan and the
development will have a commercial character, staff is not supportive of the
request.
I.STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING
COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2, 2004)
Mr.
Joe White was present representing the request.There were no registered objectors present.Staff stated the applicant had submitted a letter requesting the item be
deferred to the January 20, 2005 public hearing.Staff stated the request would require a waiver of the By-laws for the
late deferral request.A motion was
made to waive the By-laws for the later deferral request.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
There
was no further discussion of the item.A
motion was made to place the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
PLANNING
COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 20, 2005)
Mr.
Joe White was present representing the request.There were no registered objectors present.Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated January 13,
2005, requesting this item be deferred to the March 3, 2005 public hearing.Staff stated they were supportive of the request.
There
was no further discussion of the item.The
chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for deferral.The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent.
