Loading...
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