pc_07 12 1994LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JULY 12, 1994
12:30 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten (10) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the May 31, 1994 meeting.
The Minutes of the Previous Meeting were approved as
mailed.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
City Attorney:
Diane Chachere
Kathleen Oleson
B. J. Wyrick
Joe Hirsch Selz
Ramsay Ball
Emmett Willis, Jr.
Bill Putnam
Ron Woods
Brad Walker
John McDaniel
Jerilyn Nicholson
Stephen Giles
P
July 12, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S -548-C
NAME: TCBY TREAT EXPRESS -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
LOCATION: On the north side is Highway 10, approximately
100 feet east of Pinnacle Valley Road, in the Kroger Center
parking lot.
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
TCBY RICHARD CAULDER
1100 TCBY Tower 1100 TCBY Tower
425 W. Capitol Ave. 425 W. Capitol Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201
688-8220 688-8229
AREA: N.A. NUMBER OF LOTS: N.A. FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: C-3 PROPOSED USE: Drive-thru restaurant
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant seeks approval to place a "TCBY Treat Express"
unit on the Kroger Center parking lot on Highway 10. The
unit is an 8'-4" x 20'-0" drive-thru TCBY yogurt sales
restaurant, with a walk-up sales and outside seating area.
The unit's location takes 9 of the existing shopping
center's parking spaces. Access to the unit from Highway 10
is by way of the shopping center access drives.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant seeks site plan review in order to place
a yogurt sales unit on the parking lot of the Highway
10 Kroger Center. A number of the existing parking
spaces are proposed to be taken for the placement of
the unit; other parking spaces are proposed to be taken
for a walk-up service and seating area. The vehicle
route for the drive-thru is by way of an access drive
to shopping center parking spaces.
July 12, 1994
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-548-C
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The proposed TCBY Treat Express is to be located in the
Kroger Center parking lot, at the "front" of the lot
just off Highway 10. There are 3 undeveloped "out
parcels" along the front of the parking lot which were
provided in the original Candlewood Commercial
Subdivision plat; the proposed TCBY location is not in
one of these designated out parcels, but is in an area
designated as parking area for the shopping center.
The existing zoning of the shopping center site is C-3.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works reports that the relationship of the
drive-thru traffic's line of travel to the adjacent
parking spaces (i.e., they are in opposite directions
to one another) and the drive-thru's sharing of the
backing and maneuvering space for parking is
unacceptable. The drive-thru traffic must have its own
driving area and have adequate vehicle stacking space.
Water Works indicates that water service to the unit is
shown to be from a private water line, and is shown to
cross the shopping center's main entrance drive. The
tapping of the line, construction of the service line,
and meter box will be the applicant's responsibility;
Water Works will be involved only to the extent of
setting a meter. The applicant must contact Water
Works for the required meter size and its location.
Water Works points out that service to this site may
present problems because of the existing pavement.
Wastewater Utility reports that sewer is available, and
that there will be no adverse effect in the providing
of service.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without
comment.
Landscape review points out that the Shopping Center is
located along Highway 10 and is subject to the Highway
10 Overlay requirements. The building setback line
required by the Overlay is 100 feet; the proposed
building is shown to be approximately 90 feet off
2
July 12, 1994
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-548-C
Highway 10. The building, then, will have to conform
to the 100 foot building setback line for the Highway
10 Overlay. The Landscape Ordinance will also require
a minimum 3 -foot wide landscape-strip-to�separate the
building from the parking area, and a minimum 6 foot
wide landscape strip at the lease lot line.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The unit and associated service area is shown to be
located out in the middle of the parking lot, with no
lease line designated. The lease area for the use is
to be shown, and the required landscape strips are to
be provided.
When the Candlewood Commercial Subdivision was
approved, the Neighborhoods and Planning staff and the
Planning Commission were concerned about the number,
size, and location of the shopping center's out
parcels. When the subdivision was approved, the 3 out
parcels, as shown on the plat, were approved. The
proposed TCBY Treat Express is not within one of the
allotted out parcels.
The Subdivision Ordinance, Section 31-13, requires site
plan review for developments "involving the
construction of two (2) or more buildings...." The
site plan review for the proposed TCBY Treat Express is
required pursuant to these provisions.
The Zoning Ordinance, Section 36-502, stipulates the
required parking for various types of uses. For a
shopping center with 120,275 square feet, 338 parking
spaces are required. The site plan for the shopping
center indicates that 592 spaces are provided.
E. ANALYSIS•
The site plan is deficient in that it does not show the
lease lot line, nor does it provide the required
perimeter and building landscaping. The building
location is closer to Highway 10 than is allowed. The
proposed travel direction at the drive-thru window is
in the opposite direction of the line of travel for
access to the parking spaces, and back-up area and
maneuvering space conflicts with stacking space for the
drive-thru. The .allowable out parcels for the shopping
center are designated, and the proposed location is
outside one of these parcels.
3
July 12, 1994
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -548-C
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the application, and
recommends that the proposed facility be located within
one of the designated out parcels. If the Commission
chooses to approve the location, however, the comments
noted regarding designating the lease lot line,
landscaping, conforming to the required building
setback line, and designating a proper drive-thru
travel lane which does not conflict with other traffic
are important to be addressed.
STAFF COMMENT:
This item is to be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on
July 7, which is after the date the agenda is printed and
mailed to the Commission members. A report of the
Committee's comments, then, will be made at the Commission
hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 12, 1994)
Staff outlined the request, and reported that the applicant
had notified staff prior to the meeting that there had been
a misunderstanding concerning the form of the notice to
abutting property owners; that the notices had shown the
address of the abutting property owner's in the space
provided for the applicant's location. Staff said that the
notices would have to be resent, and suggested that the item
be deferred for 2 weeks, to the July 26, 1994 Commission
hearing. Staff pointed out that the applicant had not
submitted for review responses to the deficiencies noted at
the Subdivision Committee meeting, including the submission
of a project narrative or the revised drawings. Staff
indicated that the applicant was prepared to make a
presentation regarding their responses to the Subdivision
Committee's comments, and suggested that, in order to give
not only the Subdivision Committee members, but the
Commission as a whole, an opportunity to hear these
responses, the applicant be permitted to proceed with their
presentation.
Mr. Richard Caulder spoke representing TCBY. He said that
the building had been relocated, not only to address the
concern staff had regarding traffic, but to conform to the
4
July 12, 1994
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-548-C
Highway 10 setback requirement. He said that the lease lot
line had been delineated, and that the shopping center owner
had agreed to forego one of the designated out parcels in
exchange for TCBY being allowed to occupy the location on
the parking lot. He presented a photograph of the type of
unit which is proposed, and stated that there would be no
additional signage than the signs located on the unit.
Chairperson Chachere asked Mr. Caulder if the unit would be
physically relocated to one of the designated out parcels,
of if this were a swap of one location for the other.
Mr. Caulder responded that the unit was proposed to be
placed on the existing parking lot, and that the shopping
center owner would give up one of the out parcels in
exchange for this consideration. He went on to say that the
proposed unit is a test unit, and is placed in various
locations to test the market to see if the market is strong
enough to warrant placing a permanent structure at the
location. He said that TCBY had spoken with the shopping
center owner regarding locating a permanent building on one
of the designated out parcels if the test was successful.
Commissioner Oleson asked the applicant to address the
provisions for landscaping.
Mr. Caulder responded that the extent of the landscaping is
shown on the plan: the planters and benches.
Commissioner Willis quizzed the applicant on the type of
building and the permanence of the use of the site. He
concluded from the description that the unit was portable,
and that the use was proposed to be temporary until the
market could be tested, at which time, if the market
warranted, a permanent building would be located on one of
the designated out parcels.
Staff pointed out that one of the deficiencies noted at the
Subdivision Committee meeting was that a project narrative
had not been submitted, and that the information being
furnished at the Commission meeting was being related for
the first time. Staff suggested that the site plan review
be pursued as a temporary use rather than as the permanent
use being sought. Staff indicated that the applicant could
clarify the application to seek a 1 -year renewable permit,
allowing TCBY permission to occupy the parking lot without
9
July 12, 1994
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-548-C
having to conform to the requirements for re -platting,
landscaping, and construction required for a permanent
structure.
A motion was made and seconded to defer consideration of the
item until the July 26, 1994 Planing Commission Hearing.
Commissioner Oleson wanted verification that the applicant
could mail the corrected legal notices to the abutting
property owners, and meet the 15 -day requirement. The
applicant assured the Commission that the notices would be
mailed that day, which is 15 days prior to the July 26th.
meeting. The motion to defer the hearing was approved with
the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
July 12, 1994
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 2
SUBJECT: Presentation by Public Works Department of
Stormwater Management
STAFF REPORT:
Mr. Sherman Smith and Scott Foster, of the Public Works
Engineering staff, were present. Mr. Smith identified his
presentation as a response to several issues that have
developed in the last several weeks concerning Public Works'
recommendations. These recommendations had to do with small
lot development or site plans and plats wherein a request
was made by his office for stormwater detention
calculations. Mr. Smith offered a brief history of the
issues. He discussed the Subdivision Committee meeting,
approximately, one week earlier wherein this subject came to
a head when discussing a small church proposing to build a
small addition to the rear of their building.
A lengthy discussion of this subject followed with various
comments offered by staff and the Planning Commission.
These comments included a number of concerns about cost to
small developers and site users, especially when these costs
are required on the front end prior to assurance that the
development would be done. The general consensus was that
some review needs to be made of the ordinance standards with
regard to the size of buildings and sizes of lots. The
federal floodplain management requirements and other areas
that affect development.
Staff reported that further work will be done on this
subject and additional reports will be made to the Planning
Commission.
July 12, 1994
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 3
SUBJECT: Staff presentation of the Plans Committee's
recommended approach to Phase II of the 1994 Ordinance
Amendment Package
STAFF REPORT:
Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief overview of the
Phase II submittal. He offered copies of this draft to the
Commission for their review and comment. He pointed out the
two or three areas of this draft that required specific
analysis and decision. Most of the issues in this package
were identified as simply editing or cleanup of errors in
previous ordinance printings. Wood stated that his purpose
in making this presentation was to ask the Commission to
place this element of the annual package on hold, until such
time as elements 3 and 4 of this years ordinance package are
completed. At that time public hearings will be held;
additional mailings accomplished; and the Commission makes
determinations on recommendations to the City Board.
After a brief discussion by the Commission and comments from
Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters, the Commission
determined to place this item on hold with Phase I for later
consideration.
July 12, 1994
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 4
SUBJECT: Noise Level Review by Public Works Department for
drive-thru speaker order boards
STAFF REPORT:
Sherman Smith, of the Public Works Engineering staff, was
present. Mr. Smith handed out copies of a page extracted
from a text dealing with sound level monitoring, offering
the various decibel ranges and their audible effects.
Smith presented a case study report on several drive-thru
restaurants in the Little Rock area where his office had
performed monitoring of the sound levels at different times
and different distances from the order boards where the
speakers are mounted. He indicated that these activities
generally have the same background levels, except in the
downtown areas, on streets like Broadway, it is somewhat
higher. He indicated that there was definitely an audible
increase in the background on a given site when the speakers
are active and persons are talking. Mr. Smith indicated
that he would be available to perform this kind of function
for the Planning Commission in circumstances where there was
a question of sound and its effects.
A general discussion of the subject matter followed
involving staff and commissioners. A question from
Commissioner Oleson prompted Richard Wood, of the staff, to
report that the Zoning Ordinance contains some minimum
standards for buffering sound from adjacent residential
areas. However, there are few, if any of these walls, on
various sites about the City due to the designs and their
location.
After additional general conversation, the Chairman
determined that there was no action needed by the
Commission. The Chairman accepted Mr. Smith's report and
asked if there was further business to be presented to the
Commission.
n
r -C
uj
CC
LLJ
0
Z
0
0
Z
Z
CL
-IQ
MR
I
Z
LLJ
U)
co
W
m
O
C�
I/V
CL
LIJ
Lu
Mm
LLj
CO
::-:
<
M
cc
<
p
LU
m
W
=
<
Lij
Lij
U5
(D
LU
Z
:E
-j
0
C/)
1
0
0
22
Lli
2
-
Z
0
Lli
�—D
CO
�:Z
3:
<
CL
F.,
�r-
-0
ca
C�
0-j
0
3:
WCID
LLJ
M
LU
MR
I
Z
LLJ
U)
co
W
m
LU
Z
<
Lu
s
Wi
LU
co
<
<<
LLJ
z
<
L.Li
Lij
LLj
—i
Z
=LLJ
0
LLJ
<
-2E
,
Cf)
0
z
i2
L.Li
Lu
<
(D
L.Lj0
0
co
Y
m
<
z
rr-
-
co
0
ui
0
Lij
LU
<
MR
I
Z
LLJ
U)
co
W
m
July 12, 1994
PLANNING HEARING
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Date•F5) "
Chairman