Z-8610 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-8610
NAME: McDonald's USA Short -form PD-C
LOCATION: Located at 104 South University Avenue
DEVELOPER:
McDonald's USA, LLC
3850 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 1200
Metairie, LA 70602
ENGINEER:
Lee Morris, PE
Adams Engineering
910 South Kimball Avenue
Southlake, TX 76092
AREA:.9279 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
ALLOWED USES: General Commercial District Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Restaurant — Mid -town Design Overlay District
VARIANCESIWAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT:
The site is located within the Mid -town Design Overlay District which requires
redevelopment of site to rezone the property to a Planned Zoning Development.
The request includes the removal of an existing restaurant building and the
construction of a new 4,928 square foot McDonald's restaurant. The restaurant
will provide a shared access from South University Avenue with a lot located to
the north. Parking will be provided via a cross parking agreement with the
adjacent lot. According to the applicant the restaurant will be a prototype of a
McDonald's restaurant which is designed specifically for use in the Midtown
Overly District. Only a limited number of McDonald's restaurants of this type
have bCCn constructed.
FILE NO.: Z-8610 Cont.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a vacant restaurant building with a shared access drive from
South University Avenue. North of the restaurant building is a multi -story office
building. South of the site is a vacant commercial property formerly a branch
bank. West of the site is a multi -family development and additional office
buildings. East of the site is the St. Vincent's Medical Center. This area of
South University and West Markham Street is developed with regional shopping
centers, restaurants and a general office uses.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
A
E.
As of this writing, staff has received a number of information phone calls from
area resident. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all
residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Hillcrest
Residents Neighborhood Association and the Briarwood Neighborhood
Association were notified of the public hearing. The Mid -Town Advisory Board
has reviewed the site plan.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Conduct a traffic study to determine the impact of proposed traffic on City
streets. Determine with the proposed drive thru configuration, if vehicles will
stack on City streets. If the proposed drive thru design is not adequate and
alternative should be provided. If you have any questions, please contact Bill
Henry in Traffic Engineering at 501-379-1816.
2. Left turns from Markham Street at this location are prohibited due to the
distance from the University/Markham intersection. If left turns create a
problem, left turns will be prohibited by structural controls. If you have any
questions, please contact Bill Henry in Traffic Engineering at 501-379-1816.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner).
UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: No permanent building foundation is allowed within five (5) feet of
the existing sewer main. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional
information.
FA
FILE NO.: Z-8610 (Cont.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center -Point Ener : Approved as submitted.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. The Little Rock Fire
Department needs to evaluate this site to determine if addition public and/or
private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required,
they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Please submit plans for water
facilities and/or fire protection system to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan
revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas
water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities and/or fire service.
Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division
and Little Rock Fire Department is required. Contact Central Arkansas Water
regarding the size and location of the water meter. Due to the nature of this
facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer
assembly (RPZ) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must
be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW)
requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly
must be completed by a Certified Assembly tester licensed by the State of
Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross
Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter.
Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss
backflow prevention requirements for this project. 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 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: CATA Bus Routes #17 — the Mabelvale-Downtown Route, #17A — the
Mabelvale UALR Route and #21 — University Avenue Route all run along the
property frontage.
Parks and Recreation: No comment.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning_ Division: This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant
has applied for a rezoning from C-3 to PCD for a McDonald's. Each Planned
Zoning District is to be reviewed on its own merits with consideration of the Land
3
FILE NC.: Z-8610
Use Plan for the site and surrounding areas. This area is covered by the
Briarwood Neighborhood Plan, but the plan does not address this issue.
Master Street Plan: South University is shown as a Principal Arterial. The
primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect
major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and
exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on
University since it is a Principal Arterial. St. Vincent Circle and McKinley are both
shown as Local Streets. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide
access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-
residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as
"Commercial Streets". These streets have a design standard the same as a
Collector. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require
street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. The site is located within the Midtown Overlay District and must comply to the
codes set forth.
3. University Avenue is classified as an arterial street; therefore, the site must
comply with the City of Little Rock's Landscape Ordinance, Chapter 15.
4. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum nine -foot (9') wide perimeter
landscape strip around the sites entirety. Currently, the site is deficient on
this minimal requirement along the northern perimeter of the site. A variance
from the City Beautiful Commission will be required prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 24, 2010)
The applicant was present. Staff presented an overview of the development
stating there were a number of technical issues in need of addressing prior to the
Commission acting on the request. Staff stated the site was located within the
Mid -town Design Overlay District which established design criteria for
development.. Staff requested additional information concerning signage,
dumpsters and screening, site lighting and the proposed materials for the
building construction. Staff also stated the order menu board would require
screening via a six foot screening wall a minimum of 20-feet in length.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a traffic study was
required to determine the impact of the proposed development on City streets.
Staff stated this was needed to determine if the proposed drive-thru configuration
M
FILE NO.: Z-8610 (Cont.
would stack automobiles onto City streets. Staff also stated left turns from
Markham Street at this location were prohibited due to the distance from the
University /Markham intersection. Staff stated if left turns created a problem, left
turns would be prohibited by structural controls. Staff requested the applicant
provide a traffic impact study for the development.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the site development was
to comply with the minimum standards of Chapter 15 and the Mid -town Design
Overlay District requirements. Staff stated a nine (9) foot landscape strip was
required around the site's perimeter to comply with the Landscape Ordinance
requirements.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
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 site plan to staff addressing a number of
issues raised at the November 24, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has addressed staff concerns related to signage, dumpsters locations
and screening. The applicant has indicated site lighting will be directional,
directed downward and into the site. The applicant has provided staff with the
proposed materials for the building construction. The applicant has also provided
staff with a traffic impact analysis. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant
on the potential for modification to area streets and the potential impact these
modifications will have on traffic accessing the site.
The site is located within the Mid -Town Design Overlay District. The Overlay
outlines specific development criteria for redevelopment of properties within the
District boundaries. The Overlay states for all new construction, at least sixty
percent of the ground floor level facing internal pedestrian public circulation areas
or streets are to be glass -windows, entry features or displays. The primary
facade of the building is to be oriented parallel to the street, or to the principal
vehicular or pedestrian routes of travel whether public or private. Buildings are to
maintain a distinction between upper and lower levels. Wall projections or
recesses a minimum of three feet deep and a minimum of twenty contiguous feet
not to extend over twenty percent of the facade is required. Arcades, display
windows, entry areas or awnings is required to exist along at least sixty percent
of the fagade.
The primary entrance is to be oriented to the street or to the principal vehicular or
pedestrian routes of travel within the development. Buildings are to have a
clearly defined and visible customer entrance featuring elements such as
overhangs, arcades, arches, canopies, peaked roof forms, display windows. All
sides of the building that face abutting public or private rights of way, except
5
FILE NO.: Z-8610 (Cont.)
alleys, shall feature at least one customer entrance. The small building
development criteria requires buildings under five thousand square feet (5,000)
to not allow parking to wrap the building but limited to the side and rear areas
and the maximum building height allowed is thirty-five (35) feet.
Exterior building materials are to be of high quality materials, such as brick,
wood, stone, stucco, EIFS and are to be low reflectant, subtle, neutral or earth
tone with trim and accents of brighter colors. Smooth faced concrete block, tilt -
up concrete panels or prefabricated steel panels construction materials are not
allowed within the DOD boundaries.
The DOD states the front yard setback may be zero (0) but will not be more than
twenty (20) feet. The side and rear yard setbacks may be zero (0) except where
adjacent to lots containing single-family detached structures. Where adjacent to
detached single-family residential the side yard setback must be not less than
four (4) feet and the rear yard setback must be not less than twenty-five (25) feet.
Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways fronting buildings with ground floor retail are
to be at least ten (10) feet in width. Protected pedestrian walkways are to be
provided through parking lots. All development must include as part of their site
plan pedestrian linkages through parking areas and to adjacent buildings or
developments.
Surface parking areas are to be broken up or distributed around larger structures
so as to shorten the distance to other buildings and public sidewalks. The
parking requirement for developments within the DOD area are to be at least fifty
percent (50%) of that required by the zoning ordinance. The maximum parking
allowed within a development is to be the minimum parking established by the
zoning ordinance. No parking is allowed in the front yard setback area.
Signage must comply with Article X of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances. No
off -site advertising signs are permitted. No pole -mounted signs are permitted.
Monument signs identifying the developments less than one acre are limited to
monument signs up to twenty-four (24) square feet in area and six (6) feet in
height.
No street buffer or landscaping is required along streets classified less than an
arterial. When the structure is not built to the property line, landscaping is
required in the area between the building and property line up to that required in
the Landscape Ordinance.
The site plan differs from the DOD in the following areas:
The DOD requires 60% openings on all public facades - the non -drive thru
facade (south) does not appear to meet this requirement.
FILE NO.: Z-8610 (Cont_
The DOD requires the front setback be not more than 20 feet — the site
plan indicates a front setback of approximately 40 feet.
The DOD requires that internal drives be ten (10) to twelve (12) feet in
width — the site plan indicates the front drive at eighteen (18) feet in width.
The DOD requires all crosswalks be raised, scored etc — it appears the
cross walks end at the property line not allowing connectivity to the
adjacent property.
e The DOD requires sidewalks along building facades with windows be ten
(10) feet — the site plan indicates a sidewalk along the windowed fagade at
5.5 feet.
The DOD requires landscape along University Avenue (street buffer) at a
minimum of nine (9) feet — the plan as presented appears to be a
minimum of nine (9) feet in the southern most area but within the
landscape strip is a five (5) foot sidewalk.
• The DOD requires internal and site landscape of vehicular areas as
required per the Landscape Ordinance — the site plan does not provide the
minimum nine (9) foot landscape strip along the northern perimeter.
The DOD allows one-half of the normal parking requirement of the zoning
ordinance. The maximum parking allowed is the minimum established by
the zoning ordinance. With the proposed development 24 spaces would
typically be required - the site plan indicates 22 spaces. The DOD states
that a project may elect to use shared parking determining the total
parking requirement by submitting a parking demand analysis prepared by
a qualified professional. There is a shared parking agreement in place
between the property owner to the north and McDonald's.
The DOD does not allow off -site advertising signs — the development is
proposed with a monument sign located on West Markham Street which is
off site.
• The DOD requires all building signage meet the City sign ordinance
requirements — the signage along north, south and rear are proposed as
signage which do not have street frontage, thus are not allowed.
The DOD requires all surface parking areas to comply with the Landscape
Ordinance — the site plan as presented will not provide the required
number of on -site trees, the required number of shrubs, building
landscaping and interior landscaping at a minimum of eight (8) percent.
The previous deferral allowed the City Traffic Engineer and the applicant's traffic
engineer to determine the impact of traffic generated by the development on the
area City streets. Staff has met with the applicant's traffic engineer to review the
revised modeling and potential on -site and off -site improvements. In addition
staff had a conference call with McDonald's concerning site traffic and modeling
7
FILE NO.: Z-8610 (Cont.)
of traffic on West Markham Street and University Avenue. The current model of
traffic still shows insufficient capacity for the drive thru traffic and left turning
traffic on West Markham Street is shown blocking the through lanes for
westbound traffic on West Markham Street. McDonald's representatives have
indicated that their new store design will address the capacity issues with the site
traffic. However, the major issue of blocking the intersection of West Markham
Street and University Avenue due to insufficient left turn lane capacity for
westbound left turning vehicles into the site still exists. Improvements being
recommended by the applicant does not solve the left turning traffic capacity
issue on West Markham Street. The plan as submitted still has significant traffic
problems associated with it, which can not be ignored.
Based on concerns of potential impacts of traffic on West Markham and
University Avenue and the areas of non-compliance with the Mid -town Design
Overlay District staff is not supportive of the request as filed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 16, 2010)
Mr. Randy Frazier was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a
request dated November 29, 2010, requesting a deferral of the item to the January 27,
2011, public hearing. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the deferral request was
necessary to allow completion of the requested traffic study and allow staff sufficient
time to review the contents of the study. Staff stated they were supportive of the
deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes
0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated January 11, 2011, requesting a deferral of this
item to the March 10, 2011, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
FILE NO.: Z-8610 (Cont.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 27, 2011)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated January 11,
2011, requesting a deferral of this item to the March 10, 2011, public hearing. Staff
stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion of approval
of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated February 15, 2011, requesting a deferral of this
item to the April 21, 2011, public hearing. The deferral request will require a By-law
waiver with regard to the number of previous deferral requests. Staff recommends
approval of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 10, 2011)
Mr. Randy Frazier was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a
request dated February 15, 2011, requesting a deferral of the item to the April 21, 2011,
public hearing. Staff stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the By-laws
with regard to the number of previously approved deferral requests. Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the By-law waiver request with regard to the number of previously approved
deferrals. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. The chair
entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried
by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 21, 2011)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of deferral of the item to the May 19, 2011,
public hearing. Staff stated the deferral was necessary to allow staff additional time to
review the revised traffic study.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
N
FILE NO.: Z-8610
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 19, 2011)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of deferral of the item to the June 30, 2011,
public hearing. Staff stated the deferral was necessary to allow staff additional time to
review additional information submitted by the applicant.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on June 10, 2011. The revised plan
indicates an increased building setback, modifications to the landscape areas and the
addition of a second stacking lane for the drive -through window.
The applicant has indicated the building will provide glass on the northern and eastern
facades at seventy nine (79) percent. The Mid -town DOD requires a minimum of
sixty (60) percent of the public facades to be glass.
The revised plan indicates the building setback along South University Avenue, the
front, at sixty-seven (67) feet. The DOD states buildings should be set at zero but no
more than twenty (20) feet. The previous site plan indicated a front building setback of
forty (40) feet.
The DOD states internal drives are to be ten (10) to twelve (12) feet in width. The
revised plan indicates driveway the northern driveway as seventeen (17) feet with
two drive -through lanes each ten (10) feet wide. The western drive has been reduced
from thirty (30) feet to eighteen (18) feet.
As with the previous plan the sidewalks located along the northern and eastern facades
of the building are 5.5 feet and 6.5 feet respectively. The DOD states sidewalks are to
be a minimum of ten (10) feet in width.
The street buffer along South University Avenue has not changed significantly. The
buffer is indicated with a two (2) foot grass strip adjacent to the right of way on South
University Avenue, a five (5) foot sidewalk, a retaining wall and a two (2) foot grass strip
adjacent to the drive -through exit drive on the site. The DOD states street buffers are to
comply with City Ordinance. This would typically require a minimum street buffer width
of nine (9) feet.
The revised plan has included a five (5) foot landscape strip between the proposed
parking along the northern perimeter. The ordinance would typically require the
placement of a nine (9) foot landscape strip between properties. The front building
10
FILE NO.: Z-8610 (Cont
landscape area has been increased from a depth of ten (10) feet to thirty (30) feet. The
southern landscape strip has been reduced from twelve (12) feet to four (4) feet. The
western landscape strip has been reduced from fourteen (14) feet to seven (7) feet.
The landscape strip around the trash enclosure and storage has not changed and
remains at four (4) feet.
The previous plan indicated twenty-two (22) parking spaces. The revised plan indicates
a total of twenty-one (21) parking spaces. The DOD states the minimum parking
required per the zoning ordinance shall be the maximum parking allowed for a
development. The minimum parking per the zoning ordinance for this site is
twenty-four (24) parking spaces. The parking complies with the typical DOD standards.
The site plan continues to indicate the placement of a sign on West Markham Street
which is located off -premise. The City Sign Ordinance prohibits the placement of
off -premise with the exception of bill -boards or outdoor advertising as specifically
permitted in Section 36-556 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of Little Rock. There
is not a mechanism in place to allow the City to approve the sign as requested.
It does not appear there has been any change of the on -site signage, the building
signage or the ground sign located along South University Avenue. As previously
indicated the building signage along the northern, western and southern facades are
located without public street frontage which does not comply with the City's Sign
Ordinance. The ground sign is indicated with a maximum height of six (6) feet and a
maximum sign area of thirty-six (36) square feet.
The applicant has provided an updated traffic study regarding the revised site plan. The
original report was dated February 10, 2011. The applicant states since the
presentation of the original study there have been many discussions with the City of
Little Rock staff and McDonald's. Discussions have included consideration for a variety
of design and operational measures to offer refinement of the site plan. The amended
traffic study states changes to the site plan include design features that allow improved
traffic operations and access including the following:
Building design to improve efficiency of serving customers. — These measures
include accommodation of a double, side -by -side on -site vehicle stacking for
vehicles awaiting access to the double order board stations. The building design
also now incorporates three service windows which follow the order board stations to
permit payment at one window and pick-up of customer orders at two windows, one
of which is intended to primarily serve customer orders requiring longer time to be
present, located at a forward location, which will not impede progress of customer
orders -behind. This results in improved overall service times.
• West Markham Street joint access with the Baker Building — Agreement has been
reached with owners of the Baker Building to permit shared access to West
Markham Street.
11
FILE NO.: Z-8610 (Cont.
® West Markham Street left turn lane widening — A plan to widen West Markham
Street in the vicinity of the site has been proposed to provide a bi-directional
center left -turn lane from University Avenue to the access drive serving
Park Plaza/Chick-fil-A. This street improvements will provide left turn lane storage at
the joint access drive (to be shared with the Baker Building), plus drives serving
Plaza Towers.
According to the applicant revised traffic operational calculations and simulation
modeling was preformed as a part of the study update for projected traffic operating
conditions for the study intersections based on the revised site design. According to the
applicant critical to the assessment of traffic operations is an assessment of site ingress
and egress at the two proposed access drives and circulation through the drive -through
facility. The drive locations are along the south side of West Markham Street and
on the west side of University Avenue. The two drives are existing and serve the
Baker Building. The existing north access drive intersects West Markham Street
approximately 285 feet west of University Avenue. The eastern existing drive intersects
University Avenue approximately 150 feet south of West Markham Street and serves
right-in/right-out vehicle movements only.
According to the applicant the operation of the drive -through facility and the queuing of
vehicles in that portion of the site are of particular interest. TSIS —CORSIM (Traffic
Software Integrated System, Version 6.2) traffic modeling software was used for
assessment of traffic operation at the proposed site. The operations simulation
modeling for projected traffic conditions analysis results show traffic operations to be
favorable. The model demonstrates that vehicle queuing can be fully contained within
the site. Also according to the applicant the widening of West Markham Street and
provision of a westbound left turn lane to greatly improve access at the West Markham
Street driveway while allowing uninterrupted east -west through vehicle movements on
West Markham Street at the access driveway.
Staff has completed the review of the consultant's traffic modeling and analysis for the
revised McDonald's site plan. Based on their latest site plan and the widening of West
Markham Street, staffs analysis of the consultant's traffic study indicates that the
proposed plan does not indicate a negative impact on the adjacent street system. Staff
has conducted field investigations to verify the modeling and to ensure the modeling
was calibrated to the existing traffic conditions at this location. The proposed
modification to West Markham Street provides just enough left turn storage for the
proposed traffic shown in the trip generation report based on today's traffic volumes.
However, staff is concerned that with increasing traffic volumes on these two major
arterials, problems will be generated in the near future. During observations of the
AM peak hour, traffic stacked up past the proposed entrance on Markham Street
numerous times. As traffic increases in the Markham corridor in the future, there will be
fewer and fewer gaps in the eastbound traffic flow that will allow for the left turn
maneuvers into and out of the McDonald's site. This will result in blocking westbound
traffic as well as blocking vehicles attempting to exit the site. on Markham in the near
future.
12
FILE NO.: Z-8610 (Cont.
Based on staff's continued concerns of potential impacts of traffic on West Markham
Street and University Avenue and the areas of non-compliance with the DOD staff is not
supportive of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 30, 2011)
The applicant was present. There was one objector present. Dana Carney, of the
Planning staff, presented the item and a recommendation of denial. He noted the
several variances from the Code and stated it appeared they were trying to do too much
on a small site. Bill Henry, City traffic Engineer, gave a report on the City's analysis of
the traffic study prepared by the applicant. He spoke of trip generation and traffic
volumes on S. University and W. Markham. Mr. Henry stated he was concerned that
those streets would be blocked by traffic created under this application.
Randy Frazier, representing the application, introduced the item and stated they wanted
to address the Design Overlay District and traffic. Mr. Frazier acknowledged there were
variances from the DOD standards. He surmised that any development of the site
would require variances. He stated there had been seventeen (17) variances approved
for the Park Avenue development; six (6) of which were the same as variances they
were requesting. He stated the proposed McDonald's was state of the art in design,
service and traffic flow.
Andy Halsey, regional construction manager of McDonald's, described the project. He
stated this would be the third of this new, state of the art design store in the country. He
said there was a third window at the drive -through for customers requesting those items
that were not readily available, which would allow traffic at the other two windows to
move more quickly. He described the proposed window service times. Mr. Halsey
stated they were taking down an old, dilapidated building. He acknowledged there were
landscape variances. He stated there would be more landscaping than currently
existed. He noted the restaurant would have two, side by side drive through lanes,
allowing two orders at a time to be processed. He said some aspects of the building will
be "green" construction.
Ernie Peters, traffic engineer for the applicant, discussed aspects of his traffic study.
He stated he looked at local, high traffic generating sites; not just national numbers.
He noted the proposed widening of W. Markham Street to create a center turn lane.
Mr. Peters stated Mr. Henry's concerns were based on what might happen in the future.
He said his numbers included a 10% increase and the volume numbers on W. Markham
showed no access problems. He stated he respectfully disagreed with Mr. Henry but he
felt this site would function well.
Mr. Frazier stated the improvements to W. Markham St. would benefit others, not just
McDonald's. He stated they had the support of other property owners in the area.
Ms. Wilson, representing the ownership of the property, stated her support.
13
FILE NO.: Z-8610 (Cont.
Hank Kelley, representing the owners of the adjacent Baker Building, stated his support
subject to an access agreement being finalized.
Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, stated the League was
leery of the number of variances. She stated it looked like an intense use for a relatively
small property. She described it as a tight fit. She said everything would have to work
just right for the proposal to work. She commented that Park Avenue would create
increased traffic as it is built out. Ms. Bell stated both traffic engineers had stated the
project would work right now but there were concerns about what would happen in the
future. She asked what the City's recourse would be if traffic gridlock results from the
project.
Randy Frazier commented that the Midtown Advisory Board seemed supportive.
Peter Boyd, of McDonald`s, stated this was not "yesterday's McDonald's." He stated the
project was built for speed in service with three pick up windows and dual stacking
lanes. He said there would not be traffic issues.
In response to a question from Chairman Ferstl, Hank Kelley said there had not been a
discussion of McDonald's compensating the owners of the Baker Building if the
driveway of W. Markham was a right-in/right-out drive only.
Chairman Ferstl commented to Ernie Peters that he was concerned that west bound
traffic on W. Markham, stacked in the left turn lane to access McDonald's, would back
up to the W. Markham/University intersection. He said he would prefer that the drive
onto W. Markham be a right-in/right/out drive. He asked about the possibility of
accessing the site through the properties to the south. Mr. Peters responded that there
were physical constraints, such as grade differences, that rendered that option
unfeasible. He then presented a video depicting graphically the traffic movements in
the area based on the development.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if the model took into consideration holiday shopping
season or razorback game day traffic. Mr. Peters responded that it did not.
Commissioner Nunnley voiced concern about traffic impact. At his request, Mr. Peters
shared AHTD's traffic count numbers at the Markham/University intersection.
In response to questions from Commissioners Fountain and Pierce, Mr. Peters stated
constructing a median on W. Markham would be safer but a turn lane would provide
more benefits for the property owners and traffic flow on Markham.
Commissioner Changose noted Mr. Peters' traffic model had a traffic count of 180 when
Mr. Henry's suggested numbers were 200-220. In response to a question, Mr. Peters
stated he did not run his model using the 200-220 numbers.
Mr. Henry stated the a.m.- p .m. peak numbers at the Rodney Parham McDonald's were
in the range of 232. He expressed concern about the promised window times not
working in every situation. He stated he saw a potential for real traffic issues.
14
FILE NO.: Z-8610 (Cont.
Mr. Peters responded that the window times at the Rodney Parham store were different
because it was an older store with a single stacking lane and parking conflicts. He
stated the new store had three service windows, no parking conflict, new and improved
service times and internal improvements.
There was a discussion of the traffic modeling depicted on the video.
Mr. Peters estimated 72% of the traffic at the new store being drive through with the
remainder being dine -in.
Commissioners Finney and Nunnley expressed concerns about traffic.
Hank Kelley stated the improved access on W. Markham St. would benefit his client's
property.
Chairman Ferstl stated he felt McDonald's could control the window times as they
proposed.
A McDonald's representative stated they were achieving those times at a model store
they built in Oakbrook Illinois. He introduced the local licencee who stated he was
committed to achieving the proposed window times. In response to a question from
Commissioner Fountain, he explained how having the third service window would move
traffic more quickly through the site.
Chairman Ferstl asked Mr. Henry is he thought the project would work if they achieved
the proposed window times. Mr. Henry responded the site may be able to handle traffic
if they do. He stated he felt traffic numbers on the streets would continue to grow and
the intersection was at capacity now.
Commissioner Dillon stated she thought Chic-fil-a "blows up" Markham already and it
might help to have a second choice.
Commissioner Rector commented to Mr. Peters that the model doesn't show much
stacking. He asked Mr. Peters is he was confident in his model. Mr. Peters responded
that he was.
Commissioner Nunnley asked Mr. Peters if his model would work using the trip numbers
used by the City's traffic engineer. Mr. Peters responded that the difference was about
one vehicle per minute, not a noticeable difference.
There was further discussion of traffic and access.
In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Frazier stated he was amending
the application to remove the requested off -premises sign on Markham.
15
FILE NO.: Z-8610 (Cont.
Dana Carney, of the Planning staff reiterated staff's concerns. He stated the only way
the site could be developed as proposed was at the expense of elements such as
landscaping. He stated it appeared the applicant was trying to do too much on a small
site. He expressed support for the position of the City's traffic engineer and the
concerns raised by Mr. Henry.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if staff felt there was any circumstance under which this
proposal would work at this site. Mr. Carney responded that drive -through restaurants,
particularly one that generates the volume of a McDonald's, were unique and created
their own issues. He stated he did not feel the site could accommodate a drive through
type restaurant.
A motion was made to approve the application, as amended, including all staff
comments and conditions, excluding that of denial. The vote was 5 ayes, 5 noes and
1 absent. The motion failed.
16
June 30, 2011
ITEM NQ B
NAME: McDonald's USA Short -form PD-C
LOCATION Located at 104 South University Avenue
DEVELOPER:
McDonald's USA, LLC
3850 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 1200
Metairie, LA 70602
ENGINEER:
Lee Morris, PE
Adams Engineering
910 South Kimball Avenue
Southlake, TX 76092
AREA:.9279 acres
CURRENT ZONING
ALLOWED USES
PROPOSED ZONING
PROPOSED USE
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1
C-3, General Commercial District
FILE NO. Z-8610
FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
General Commercial District Uses
PCD
Restaurant — Mid -town Design Overlay District
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT
The site is located within the Mid -town Design Overlay District which requires
redevelopment of site to rezone the property to a Planned Zoning Development.
The request includes the removal of an existing restaurant building and the
construction of a new 4,928 square foot McDonald's restaurant. The restaurant
will provide a shared access from South University Avenue with a lot located to
the north. Parking will be provided via a cross parking agreement with the
adjacent lot. According to the applicant the restaurant will be a prototype of a
McDonald's restaurant which is designed specifically for use in the Midtown
Overly District. Only a limited number of McDonald's restaurants of this type
have been constructed.
June 30, 2011
ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8610
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a vacant restaurant building with a shared access drive from
South University Avenue. North of the restaurant building is a multi -story office
building. South of the site is a vacant commercial property formerly a branch
bank. West of the site is a multi -family development and additional office
buildings. East of the site is the St. Vincent's Medical Center. This area of
South University and West Markham Street is developed with regional shopping
centers, restaurants and a general office uses.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a number of information phone calls from
area resident. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all
residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Hillcrest
Residents Neighborhood Association and the Briarwood Neighborhood
Association were notified of the public hearing. The Mid -Town Advisory Board
has reviewed the site plan.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS-
1 . Conduct a traffic study to determine the impact of proposed traffic on City
streets. Determine with the proposed drive thru configuration, if vehicles will
stack on City streets. If the proposed drive thru design is not adequate and
alternative should be provided. If you have any questions, please contact Bill
Henry in Traffic Engineering at 501-379-1816.
2. Left turns from Markham Street at this location are prohibited due to the
distance from the University/Markham intersection. If left turns create a
problem, left turns will be prohibited by structural controls. If you have any
questions, please contact Bill Henry in Traffic Engineering at 501-379-1816.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner).
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: No permanent building foundation is allowed within five (5) feet of
the existing sewer main, Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional
information.
2
June 30, 2011
ITEM NO. B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8610
Entergy: No comment received.
Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. The Little Rock Fire
Department needs to evaluate this site to determine if addition public and/or
private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required,
they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Please submit plans for water
facilities and/or fire protection system to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan
revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas
water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities and/or fire service.
Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division
and Little Rock Fire Department is required. Contact Central Arkansas Water
regarding the size and location of the water meter. Due to the nature of this
facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer
assembly (RPZ) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must
be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW)
requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly
must be completed by a Certified Assembly tester licensed by the State of
Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross
Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter.
Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss
backflow prevention requirements for this project. 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 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: CATA Bus Routes #17 — the Mabelvale-Downtown Route, #17A — the
Mabelvale UALR Route and #21 — University Avenue Route all run along the
property frontage.
Parks and Recreation: No comment.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant
has applied for a rezoning from C-3 to PCD for a McDonald's. Each Planned
3
June 30, 2011
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z-8610
Zoning District is to be reviewed on its own merits with consideration of the Land
Use Plan for the site and surrounding areas. This area is covered by the
Briarwood Neighborhood Plan, but the plan does not address this issue.
Master Street Plan: South University is shown as a Principal Arterial. The
primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect
major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and
exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on
University since it is a Principal Arterial. St. Vincent Circle and McKinley are both
shown as Local Streets. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide
access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-
residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as
"Commercial Streets". These streets have a design standard the same as a
Collector. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require
street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity.
Landsca e:
1. Site plan must comply with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. The site is located within the Midtown Overlay District and must comply to the
codes set forth.
3. University Avenue is classified as an arterial street; therefore, the site must
comply with the City of Little Rock's Landscape Ordinance, Chapter 15.
4. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum nine -foot (9') wide perimeter
landscape strip around the sites entirety. Currently, the site is deficient on
this minimal requirement along the northern perimeter of the site. A variance
from the City Beautiful Commission will be required prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 24, 2010)
The applicant was present. Staff presented an overview of the development
stating there were a number of technical issues in need of addressing prior to the
Commission acting on the request. Staff stated the site was located within the
Mid -town Design Overlay District which established design criteria for
development. Staff requested additional information concerning signage,
dumpsters and screening, site lighting and the proposed materials for the
building construction. Staff also stated the order menu board WOUld require
screening via a six foot screening wall a minimum of 20-feet in length.
12
June 30, 2011
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8610
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a traffic study was
required to determine the impact of the proposed development on City streets.
Staff stated this was needed to determine if the proposed drive-thru configuration
would stack automobiles onto City streets, Staff also stated left turns from
Markham Street at this location were prohibited due to the distance from the
University /Markham intersection. Staff stated if left turns created a problem, left
turns would be prohibited by structural controls. Staff requested the applicant
provide a traffic impact study for the development.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the site development was
to comply with the minimum standards of Chapter 15 and the Mid -town Design
Overlay District requirements. Staff stated a nine (9) foot landscape strip was
required around the site's perimeter to comply with the Landscape Ordinance
requirements.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
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 site plan to staff addressing a number of
issues raised at the November 24, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has addressed staff concerns related to signage, dumpsters locations
and screening. The applicant has indicated site lighting will be directional,
directed downward and into the site. The applicant has provided staff with the
proposed materials for the building construction. The applicant has also provided
staff with a traffic impact analysis. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant
on the potential for modification to area streets and the potential impact these
modifications will have on traffic accessing the site.
The site is located within the Mid -Town Design Overlay District. The Overlay
outlines specific development criteria for redevelopment of properties within the
District boundaries. The Overlay states for all new construction, at least sixty
percent of the ground floor level facing internal pedestrian public circulation areas
or streets are to be glass -windows, entry features or displays. The primary
facade of the building is to be oriented parallel to the street, or to the principal
vehicular or pedestrian routes of travel whether public or private. Buildings are to
maintain a distinction between upper and lower levels. Wall projections or
recesses a minimum of three feet deep and a minimum of twenty contiguous feet
not to extend over twenty percent of the fagade is required. Arcades, display
windows, entry areas or awnings is required to exist along at least sixty percent
of the facade.
5
June 30, 2011
ITEM NO.: B(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-8610
The primary entrance is to be oriented to the street or to the principal vehicular or
pedestrian routes of travel within the development. Buildings are to have a
clearly defined and visible customer entrance featuring elements such as
overhangs, arcades, arches, canopies, peaked roof forms, display windows. All
sides of the building that face abutting public or private rights of way, except
alleys, shall feature at least one customer entrance. The small building
development criteria requires buildings under five thousand square feet (5,000)
to not allow parking to wrap the building but limited to the side and rear areas
and the maximum building height allowed is thirty-five (35) feet.
Exterior building materials are to be of high quality materials, such as brick;
wood, stone, stucco, EIFS and are to be low reflectant, subtle, neutral or earth
tone with trim and accents of brighter colors. Smooth faced concrete block, tilt -
up concrete panels or prefabricated steel panels construction materials are not
allowed within the DOD boundaries.
The DOD states the front yard setback may be zero (0) but will not be more than
twenty (20) feet. The side and rear yard setbacks may be zero (0) except where
adjacent to lots containing single-family detached structures. Where adjacent to
detached single-family residential the side yard setback must be not less than
four (4) feet and the rear yard setback must be not less than twenty-five (25) feet.
Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways fronting buildings with ground floor retail are
to be at least ten (10) feet in width. Protected pedestrian walkways are to be
provided through parking lots. All development must include as part of their site
plan pedestrian linkages through parking areas and to adjacent buildings or
developments.
Surface parking areas are to be broken up or distributed around larger structures
so as to shorten. the distance to other buildings and public sidewalks. The
parking requirement for developments within the DOD area are to be at least fifty
percent (50%) of that required by the zoning ordinance. The maximum parking
allowed within a development is to be the minimum parking established by the
zoning ordinance. No parking is allowed in the front yard setback area.
Signage must comply with Article X of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances. No
off -site advertising signs are permitted. No pole -mounted signs are permitted.
Monument signs identifying the developments less than one acre are limited to
monument signs up to twenty-four (24) square feet in area and six (6) feet in
height.
No street buffer or landscaping is required along streets classified less than an
arterial. When the structure is not built to the property line, landscaping is
required in the area between the building and property line up to that required in
the Lardscape Ordinance.
.,1
June 30, 2011
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8610
The site plan differs from the DOD in the following areas:
The DOD requires 60% openings on all public facades - the non -drive thru
facade (south) does not appear to meet this requirement.
The DOD requires the front setback be not more than 20 feet — the site
plan indicates a front setback of approximately 40 feet.
® The DOD requires that internal drives be ten (10) to twelve (12) feet in
width — the site plan indicates the front drive at eighteen (18) feet in width.
The DOD requires all crosswalks be raised, scored etc — it appears the
cross walks end at the property line not allowing connectivity to the
adjacent property.
® The DOD requires sidewalks along building facades with windows be ten
(10) feet — the site plan indicates a sidewalk along the windowed fagade at
5.5 feet.
• The DOD requires landscape along University Avenue (street buffer) at a
minimum of nine (9) feet — the plan as presented appears to be a
minimum of nine (9) feet in the southern most area but within the
landscape strip is a five (5) foot sidewalk.
The DOD requires internal and site landscape of vehicular areas as
required per the Landscape Ordinance — the site plan does not provide the
minimum nine (9) foot landscape strip along the northern perimeter.
The DOD allows one-half of the normal parking requirement of the zoning
ordinance. The maximum parking allowed is the minimum established by
the zoning ordinance. With the proposed development 24 spaces would
typically be required - the site plan indicates 22 spaces. The DOD states
that a project may elect to use shared parking determining the total
parking requirement by submitting a parking demand analysis prepared by
a qualified professional. There is a shared parking agreement in place
between the property owner to the north and McDonald's.
The DOD does not allow off -site advertising signs — the development is
proposed with a monument sign located on West Markham Street which is
off site.
The DOD requires all building signage meet the City sign ordinance
requirements — the signage along north, south and rear are proposed as
signage which do not have street frontage, thus are not allowed.
The DOD requires all surface parking areas to comply with the Landscape
Ordinance — the site plan as presented will not provide the required
number of on -site trees, the required number of shrubs, building
landscaping and interior landscaping at a minimum of eight (8) percent.
rl
June 30, 2011
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8610
The previous deferral allowed the City Traffic Engineer and the applicant's traffic
engineer to determine the impact of traffic generated by the development on the
area City streets. Staff has met with the applicant's traffic engineer to review the
revised modeling and potential on -site and off -site improvements. In addition
staff had a conference call with McDonald's concerning site traffic and modeling
of traffic on West Markham Street and University Avenue. The current model of
traffic still shows insufficient capacity for the drive thru traffic and left turning
traffic on West Markham Street is shown blocking the through lanes for
westbound traffic on West Markham Street. McDonald's representatives have
indicated that their new store design will address the capacity issues with the site
traffic. However, the major issue of blocking the intersection of West Markham
Street and University Avenue due to insufficient left turn lane capacity for
westbound left turning vehicles into the site still exists. Improvements being
recommended by the applicant does not solve the left turning traffic capacity
issue on West Markham Street. The plan as submitted still has significant traffic
problems associated with it, which can not be ignored.
Based on concerns of potential impacts of traffic on West Markham and
University Avenue and the areas of non-compliance with the Mid -town Design
Overlay District staff is not supportive of the request as filed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 16, 2010)
Mr. Randy Frazier was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a
request dated November 29, 2010, requesting a deferral of the item to the January 27,
2011, public hearing. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the deferral request was
necessary to allow completion of the requested traffic study and allow staff sufficient
time to review the contents of the study. Staff stated they were supportive of the
deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes
0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
M.
June 30, 2011
ITEM NO.: B(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-2610
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated January 11, 2011, requesting a deferral of this
item to the March 10, 2011, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 27, 2011)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated January 11,
2011, requesting a deferral of this item to the March 10, 2011, public hearing. Staff
stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion of approval
of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated February 15, 2011, requesting a deferral of this
item to the April 21, 2011, public hearing. The deferral request will require a By-law
waiver with regard to the number of previous deferral requests. Staff recommends
approval of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(MARCH 10, 2011)
Mr. Randy Frazier was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a
request dated February 15, 2011, requesting a deferral of the item to the April 21, 2011,
public hearing. Staff stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the By-laws
with regard to the number of previously approved deferral requests. Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the By-law waiver request with regard to the number of previously approved
deferrals. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. The chair
entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried
by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
9
June 30, 2011
ITEM NO.: B
FILE NO.: Z-8610
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 21, 2011)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of deferral of the item to the May 19, 2011,
public hearing. Staff stated the deferral was necessary to allow staff additional time to
review the revised traffic study.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 19, 2011)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of deferral of the item to the June 30, 2011,
public hearing. Staff stated the deferral was necessary to allow staff additional time to
review additional information submitted by the applicant.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on June 10, 2011. The revised plan
indicates an increased building setback, modifications to the landscape areas and the
addition of a second stacking lane for the drive -through window.
The applicant has indicated the building will provide glass on the northern and eastern
facades at seventy nine (79) percent. The Mid -town DOD requires a minimum of
sixty (60) percent of the public facades to be glass.
The revised plan indicates the building setback along South University Avenue, the
front, at sixty-seven (67) feet. The DOD states buildings should be set at zero but no
more than twenty (20) feet. The previous site plan indicated a front building setback of
forty (40) feet.
The DOD states internal drives are to be ten (10) to twelve (12) feet in width. The
revised plan indicates driveway the northern driveway as seventeen (17) feet with
two drive -through lanes each ten (10) feet wide. The western drive has been reduced
from thirty (30) feet to eighteen (18) feet.
10
June 30, 2011
ITEM NO.: B (Cont l FILE NO.- Z-8610
As with the previous plan the sidewalks located along the northern and eastern facades
of the building are 5.5 feet and 6.5 feet respectively. The DOD states sidewalks are to
be a minimum of ten (10) feet in width.
The street buffer along South University Avenue has not changed significantly. The
buffer is indicated with a two (2) foot grass strip adjacent to the right of way on South
University Avenue, a five (5) foot sidewalk, a retaining wall and a two (2) foot grass strip
adjacent to the drive -through exit drive on the site. The DOD states street buffers are to
comply with City Ordinance. This would typically require a minimum street buffer width
of nine (9) feet.
The revised plan has included a five (5) foot landscape strip between the proposed
parking along the northern perimeter. The ordinance would typically require the
placement of a nine (9) foot landscape strip between properties. The front building
landscape area has been increased from a depth of ten (10) feet to thirty (30) feet. The
southern landscape strip has been reduced from twelve (12) feet to four (4) feet. The
western landscape strip has been reduced from fourteen (14) feet to seven (7) feet.
The landscape strip around the trash enclosure and storage has not changed and
remains at four (4) feet.
The previous plan indicated twenty-two (22) parking spaces. The revised plan indicates
a total of twenty-one (21) parking spaces. The DOD states the minimum parking
required per the zoning ordinance shall be the maximum parking allowed for a
development. The minimum parking per the zoning ordinance for this site is
twenty-four (24) parking spaces. The parking complies with the typical DOD standards.
The site plan continues to indicate the placement of a sign on West Markham Street
which is located off -premise. The City Sign Ordinance prohibits the placement of
off -premise with the exception of bill -boards or outdoor advertising as specifically
permitted in Section 36-556 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of Little Rock. There
is not a mechanism in place to allow the City to approve the sign as requested.
It does not appear there has been any change of the on -site signage, the building
signage or the ground sign located along South University Avenue. As previously
indicated the building signage along the northern, western and southern facades are
located without public street frontage which does not comply with the City's Sign
Ordinance. The ground sign is indicated with a maximum height of six (6) feet and a
maximum sign area of thirty-six (36) square feet.
The applicant has provided an updated traffic study regarding the revised site plan. The
original report was dated February 10, 2011. The applicant states since the
presentation of the original study there have been many discussions with the City of
Little Rock staff and McDonald's. Discussions have included consideration for a variety
11
June 30, 2011
ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8610
of design and operational measures to offer refinement of the site plan. The amended
traffic study states changes to the site plan include design features that allow improved
traffic operations and access including the following:
Building design to improve efficiency of serving customers. — These measures
include accommodation of a double, side -by -side on -site vehicle stacking for
vehicles awaiting access to the double order board stations. The building design
also now incorporates three service windows which follow the order board stations to
permit payment at one window and pick-up of customer orders at two windows, one
of which is intended to primarily serve customer orders requiring longer time to be
present, located at a forward location, which will not impede progress of customer
orders -behind. This results in improved overall service times.
West Markham Street joint access with the Baker Building — Agreement has been
reached with owners of the Baker Building to permit shared access to West
Markham Street.
West Markham Street left turn lane widening — A plan t❑ widen West Markham
Street in the vicinity of the site has been proposed to provide a bi-directional
center left -turn lane from University Avenue to the access drive serving
Park Plaza/Chick-fil-A. This street improvements will provide left turn lane storage at
the joint access drive (to be shared with the Baker Building), plus drives serving
Plaza Towers.
According to the applicant revised traffic operational calculations and simulation
modeling was preformed as a part of the study update for projected traffic operating
conditions for the study intersections based on the revised site design. According to the
applicant critical to the assessment of traffic operations is an assessment of site ingress
and egress at the two proposed access drives and circulation through the drive -through
facility. The drive locations are along the south side of West Markham Street and
on the west side of University Avenue. The two drives are existing and serve the
Baker Building. The existing north access drive intersects West Markham Street
approximately 285 feet west of University Avenue. The eastern existing drive intersects
University Avenue approximately 150 feet south of West Markham Street and serves
right-in/right-out vehicle movements only.
According to the applicant the operation of the drive -through facility and the queuing of
vehicles in that portion of the site are of particular interest. TSIS—CORSIM (Traffic
Software Integrated System, Version 6.2) traffic modeling software was used for
assessment of traffic operation at the proposed site. The ❑perations simulation
modeling for projected traffic conditions analysis results show traffic operations to be
favorable. The model demonstrates that vehicle queuing can be fully contained within
12
June 30, 2011
ITEM NO.. B (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z-8610
the site. Also according to the applicant the widening of West Markham Street and
provision of a westbound left turn lane to greatly improve access at the West Markham
Street driveway while allowing uninterrupted east -west through vehicle movements on
West Markham Street at the access driveway.
Staff has completed the review of the consultant's traffic modeling and analysis for the
revised McDonald's site plan. Based on their latest site plan and the widening of West
Markham Street, staffs analysis of the consultant's traffic study indicates that the
proposed plan does not indicate a negative impact on the adjacent street system. Staff
has conducted field investigations to verify the modeling and to ensure the modeling
was calibrated to the existing traffic conditions at this location. The proposed
modification to West Markham Street provides just enough left turn storage for the
proposed traffic shown in the trip generation report based on today's traffic volumes.
However, staff is concerned that with increasing traffic volumes on these two major
arterials, problems will be generated in the near future. During observations of the
AM peak hour, traffic stacked up past the proposed entrance on Markham Street
numerous times. As traffic increases in the Markham corridor in the future, there will be
fewer and fewer gaps in the eastbound traffic flow that will allow for the left turn
maneuvers into and out of the McDonald's site. This will result in blocking westbound
traffic as well as blocking vehicles attempting to exit the site on Markham in the near
future.
Based on staff's continued concerns of potential impacts of traffic on West Markham
Street and University Avenue and the areas of non-compliance with the DOD staff is not
supportive of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 30, 2011)
The applicant was present. There was one objector present. Dana Carney, of the
Planning staff, presented the item and a recommendation of denial. He noted the
several variances from the Code and stated it appeared they were trying to do too much
on a small site. Bill Henry, City traffic Engineer, gave a report on the City's analysis of
the traffic study prepared by the applicant. He spoke of trip generation and traffic
volumes on S. University and W. Markham. Mr. Henry stated he was concerned that
those streets would be blocked by traffic created under this application.
Randy Frazier, representing the application, introduced the item and stated they wanted
to address the Design Overlay District and traffic. Mr. Frazier acknowledged there were
variances from the DOD standards. He surmised that any development of the site
would require variances. He stated there had been seventeen (17) variances approved
for the Park Avenue development; six (6) of which were the same as variances they
were requesting. He stated the proposed McDonald's was state of the art in design,
service and traffic flow.
13
June 30, 2011
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8610
Andy Halsey, regional construction manager of McDonald's, described the project. He
stated this would be the third of this new, state of the art design store in the country. He
said there was a third window at the drive -through for customers requesting those items
that were not readily available, which would allow traffic at the other two windows to
move more quickly. He described the proposed window service times. Mr. Halsey
stated they were taking down an old, dilapidated building. He acknowledged there were
landscape variances. He stated there would be more landscaping than currently
existed. He noted the restaurant would have two, side by side drive through lanes,
allowing two orders at a time to be processed. He said some aspects of the building will
be "green" construction.
Ernie Peters, traffic engineer for the applicant, discussed aspects of his traffic study.
He stated he looked at local, high traffic generating sites; not just national numbers.
He noted the proposed widening of W. Markham Street to create a center turn lane.
Mr. Peters stated Mr. Henry's concerns were based on what might happen in the future.
He said his numbers included a 10% increase and the volume numbers on W. Markham
showed no access problems. He stated he respectfully disagreed with Mr. Henry but he
felt this site would function well.
Mr. Frazier stated the improvements to W. Markham St. would benefit others, not just
McDonald's. He stated they had the support of other property owners in the area.
Ms. Wilson, representing the ownership of the property, stated her support.
Hank Kelley, representing the owners of the adjacent Baker Building, stated his support
subject to an access agreement being finalized.
Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, stated the League was
leery of the number of variances. She stated it looked like an intense use for a relatively
small property. She described it as a tight fit. She said everything would have to work
just right for the proposal to work. She commented that Park Avenue would create
increased traffic as it is built out. Ms. Bell stated both traffic engineers had stated the
project would work right now but there were concerns about what would happen in the
future. She asked what the City's recourse would be if traffic gridlock results from the
project.
Randy Frazier commented that the Midtown Advisory Board seemed supportive.
Peter Boyd, of McDonald's, stated this was not "yesterday's McDonald's." He stated the
project was built for speed in service with three pick up windows and dual stacking
lanes. He said there would not be traffic issues.
In response to a question from Chairman Fersti, Hank Kelley said there had not been a
discussion of McDonald's compensating the owners of the Baker Building if the
driveway of W. Markham was a right-in/right-out drive only.
14
June 30, 2011
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8610
Chairman Ferstl commented to Ernie Peters that he was concerned that west bound
traffic on W. Markham, stacked in the left turn lane to access McDonald's, would back
up to the W. Markham/University intersection. He said he would prefer that the drive
onto W. Markham be a right-in/right/out drive. He asked about the possibility of
accessing the site through the properties to the south. Mr. Peters responded that there
were physical constraints, such as grade differences, that rendered that option
unfeasible. He then presented a video depicting graphically the traffic movements in
the area based on the development.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if the model took into consideration holiday shopping
season or razorback game day traffic. Mr. Peters responded that it did not.
Commissioner Nunnley voiced concern about traffic impact. At his request, Mr. Peters
shared AHTD's traffic count numbers at the Markham/University intersection.
In response to questions from Commissioners Fountain and Pierce, Mr. Peters stated
constructing a median on W. Markham would be safer but a turn lane would provide
more benefits for the property owners and traffic flow on Markham.
Commissioner Changose noted Mr. Peters' traffic model had a traffic count of 180 when
Mr. Henry's suggested numbers were 200-220. In response to a question, Mr. Peters
stated he did not run his model using the 200-220 numbers.
Mr. Henry stated the a.m.- p .m. peak numbers at the Rodney Parham McDonald's were
in the range of 232. He expressed concern about the promised window times not
working in every situation. He stated he saw a potential for real traffic issues.
Mr. Peters responded that the window times at the Rodney Parham store were different
because it was an older store with a single stacking lane and parking conflicts. He
stated the new store had three service windows, no parking conflict, new and improved
service times and internal improvements.
There was a discussion of the traffic modeling depicted on the video.
Mr. Peters estimated 72% of the traffic at the new store being drive through with the
remainder being dine -in.
Commissioners Finney and Nunnley expressed concerns about traffic.
Hank Kelley stated the improved access on W. Markham St. would benefit his client's
property.
Chairman Ferstl stated he felt McDonald's could control the window times as they
proposed.
15
June 30, 2011
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8610
A McDonald's representative stated they were achieving those times at a model store
they built in Oakbrook Illinois. He introduced the local licencee who stated he was
committed to achieving the proposed window times. In response to a question from
Commissioner Fountain, he explained how having the third service window would move
traffic more quickly through the site.
Chairman Ferstl asked Mr. Henry is he thought the project would work if they achieved
the proposed window times. Mr. Henry responded the site may be able to handle traffic
if they do. He stated he felt traffic numbers on the streets would continue to grow and
the intersection was at capacity now.
Commissioner Dillon stated she thought Chic-fil-a "blows up" Markham already and it
might help to have a second choice.
Commissioner Rector commented to Mr. Peters that the model doesn't show much
stacking. He asked Mr. Peters is he was confident in his model. Mr. Peters responded
that he was.
Commissioner Nunnley asked Mr. Peters if his model would work using the trip numbers
used by the City's traffic engineer. Mr. Peters responded that the difference was about
one vehicle per minute, not a noticeable difference.
There was further discussion of traffic and access.
In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Frazier stated he was amending
the application to remove the requested off -premises sign on Markham.
Dana Carney, of the Planning staff reiterated staff's concerns. He stated the only way
the site could be developed as proposed was at the expense of elements such as
landscaping. He stated it appeared the applicant was trying to do too much on a small
site. He expressed support for the position of the City's traffic engineer and the
concerns raised by Mr. Henry.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if staff felt there was any circumstance under which this
proposal would work at this site. Mr. Carney responded that drive -through restaurants,
particularly one that generates the volume of a McDonald's, were unique and created
their own issues. He stated he did not feel the site could accommodate a drive through
type restaurant.
A motion was made to approve the application, as amended, including all staff
comments and conditions, excluding that of denial. The vote was 5 ayes, 5 noes and
1 absent. The motion failed.
16
ITEM NO.: 13. Z-8610
NAME: McDonald's USA Short -form PD-C
LOCATION: located at 104 South University Avenue
Planning Staff Comments:
1. Provide notification of property owners located within 200-feet of the site, complete
with the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof of
mailing. The notice must be mailed no later than December 1, 2010. The Office of
Planning and Development must receive the proof of notice no later than December
10, 2010.
2. The site is located within the Mid -Town DOD which regulates a number of items
related to the overall development of the property.
a. For new construction, at least sixty percent of the ground floor level facing the
street shall be glass -windows, entry features or displays.
b. The primary facade of a building shall be oriented parallel with the street, or to
the principal vehicular or pedestrian routes of travel whether public or private.
c. The primary entrances shall be oriented to the street or to the principal
vehicular or pedestrian routes of travel within a development.
d. Buildings shall have clearly defined and visible customer entrances featuring
elements such as overhangs, arcades, arches, canopies, peaked roof forms,
display windows.
e. All sides of the building that face abutting public or private rights -of -way,
except alleys, shall feature at least one customer entrance.
f. No elevation facing an arterial or greater street shall be primarily used as a
service entry or otherwise be treated as the rear of the structure.
g. Parapets, mansard roofs, gable roofs, high roofs shall be used to conceal flat
roofs and roof top equipment.
h. Exterior building materials and colors shall be aesthetically pleasing and
compatible with materials and colors used in neighboring developments.
i. Predominant exterior building materials shall be of high quality materials,
such as but not limited to brick, wood, stone, tinted stucco, EIFS concrete
masonry units. Fagade colors shall be low reflectant, subtle, neutral or earth
tone with trim and accents brighter colors. Predominate exterior building
materials shall not be smooth -faced concrete block, tilt -up concrete panels or
prefabricated steel panels.
j. Small building requirement — this criteria applies to buildings less than 5,000
square feet — Parking shall not wrap the building, but be limited to the side
and rear areas — Building height shall be limited to 35-feet.
k. Front yard setbacks may be zero feet but will not be more than twenty feet
excepting in those cases where grade changes make such setback
impractical.
I. Side yard setbacks may be zero except where adjacent to lots containing
single-family. These setbacks shall be four feet. Rear yard setbacks may be
Item # 13.
zero except where adjacent to single-family. In this case the setback shall be
mot less than twenty -family feet.
m. All developments shall include as part of their site plan pedestrian linkages
through parking areas and to adjacent buildings or developments.
n. All new utilities for developments within the district shall be buried. All new
developments shall underground all utilities on site or within adjacent public
right of way whenever determined by the affected utility agency to be feasible.
o. Trash enclosures shall be located in alleys whenever available or in common
service areas for multiple developments.
p. In all areas, service and waste removal areas shall be screened and located
away from public outdoor spaces and pedestrians. Dumpster screening shall
be as per Section 36-253.
q. Parking requirements within the district shall be fifty percent of that required
by Article VIII. The maximum allowed parking shall be the minimum standard
established in article vii.
r. Parking in setbacks is prohibited. No parking shall be allowed in the front
yard setback area.
s. No off site advertising signs are permitted.
t. No pole mounted sign is permitted.
u. Monument signs are to identify the development and be limited to seventy-
two square feet in area and six feet in height for developments of greater than
one acre. For developments less than one acre monument signs may be up
to twenty-four square feet in area and six feet in height and must be located
as part of the required landscape area of the parking lot.
v. No street buffer or landscaping shall be required along streets classified less
than an arterial. When the structure is not built to the property line,
landscaping is required in the area between the building and property line up
to that required in Chapter 15 of the code of ordinances.
w. Surface parking lots shall conform to all current landscape requirements.
x. Street trees shall be a minimum of three inch caliper and shall be two feet off
the back of curb, thirty feet on center. The canopy shall be maintained with
an eight foot clearance. A four foot planter strip shall be maintained.
y. All site lighting must comply with the standards established in the DOD
3. Provide details of the proposed ground signage including total height, total area and
location.
4. Provide details of the proposed dumpster screening. Will the dumpster service
hours be limited to daylight hours?
5. Provide a listing of the materials pallet for the exterior of the building.
6. Indicate a note on the site plan if the percentage of glass as required by the DOD
will be complied with.
7. Provide the days and hours of operation for the restaurant.
8. All site lighting must comply with the DOD requirements.
9. Will the site be served by cross access and cross parking with the adjacent lot? If so
indicate with a note on the site plan.
10.The order board will require screening as per Section 36-298 of the Little Rock
Code. A screening wall a minimum of six feet in height and 20-feet in length must
be constructed opposite the speaker.
Item # 13.
11.The site plan indicates the placement of signage along the northern, southern and
western facades of the building located without public street frontage.
12. The survey provided has not been signed.
Variance/Waivers: None requested.
Public Works Conditions:
1. Conduct a traffic study to determine the impact of proposed traffic on City streets.
Determine with the proposed drive thru configuration, if vehicles will stack on City
streets. If the proposed drive thru design is not adequate and alternative should be
provided. If you have any questions, please contact Bill Henry in Traffic Engineering
at 501-379-1816.
2. Left turns from Markham Street at this location are prohibited due to the distance
from the University/Markham intersection. If left turns create a problem, left turns
will be prohibited by structural controls. If you have any questions, please contact
Bill Henry in Traffic Engineering at 501-379-1816.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-
of-way prior to occupancy.
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work.
Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic
Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner).
Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning:
Wastewater: No permanent building foundation is allowed within five (5) feet of the
existing sewer main. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met. The Little Rock Fire Department needs
to evaluate this site to determine if addition public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be
required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the
Developer's expense. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection
system to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after
additional review. Contact Central Arkansas water regarding procedures for installation
of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of
Health Engineering Division and Little Rock Fire Department is required. Contact
Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. Due to the
nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow
preventer assembly (RPZ) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly
must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires
that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed
by a Certified Assembly tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by
Item # 13.
CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection Section within ten
days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at
377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project.
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 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: CATA Bus Routes #17 — the Mabelvale-Downtown Route, #17A — the
Mabelvale UALR Route and #21 — University Avenue Route all run along the property
frontage.
Parks and Recreation: No comment.
Planning Division: This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a
rezoning from C-3 to PCD for a McDonald's. Each Planned Zoning District is to be
reviewed on its own merits with consideration of the Land Use Plan for the site and
surrounding areas. This area is covered by the Briarwood Neighborhood Plan, but the
plan does not address this issue.
Master Street Plan: South University is shown as a Principal Arterial. The primary
function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic
generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be
limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on University since it is a
Principal Arterial. St. Vincent Circle and McKinley are both shown as Local Streets.
The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local
Streets which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than
duplexes are considered as "Commercial Streets". These streets have a design
standard the same as a Collector. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way
and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance requirements.
2. The site is located within the Midtown Overlay District and must comply to the codes
set forth.
3. University Avenue is classified as an arterial street; therefore, the site must comply
with the City of Little Rock's Landscape Ordinance, Chapter 15.
4. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum nine -foot (9') wide perimeter
landscape strip around the sites entirety. Currently, the site is deficient on this
minimal requirement along the northern perimeter of the site. A variance from the
City Beautiful Commission will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Item # 13.
Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plat/plan (to include
the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, December 1, 2010.
Item # 13.